A current DPhil student has invented a computer, using innovative Raspberry Pi technology, than manages orders, organises staff rotas and controls music selection.

This £35 machine is now taking control of the Wolfson College bar. Through using sensors linked together, the computer can manage stock levels based on current levels, organise staffing and vary music levels based on the crowd. It can also work out which user in college is down in the bar most often. The machine can pour the pints too, however British law requires a responsible person behind the bar and a computer would not technically count, despite meeting all other legal requirements.

The student responsible, Johan Paulsson, commented, “There are several parts of the system that works together and creates the entire system, but presumably you are talking about the stock/drinks part. The reason why this was created was because at one point we didn’t really know what was sold and what was popular in the bar. We could have constantly checked what was left in the bar but that would have been incredibly time consuming. Rather than doing that, we decided that splitting up each item in to an individual sale item would be favourable.

“This meant that we could then take the sale data from the till database and analyse this by itself to get things like: which is our most popular drink, what was sold on a specific day, how many pints is left in any keg (and therefore, does anyone need to go down and change it). If you add in what we have bought (through an automatized system of reading the delivery notes) then we also know how much stock we have in the bar and when we need to buy new items.”

He also described new additions to the scheme in a comment to Cherwell. He said, “There are a couple of things we have added which is outside the focus of the initial idea of stock control, for example there is a light sensor that checks if the bar has been opened and then updates the homepage so that people can check if they can get a drink at that moment. Being a student voluntary (i.e. non-paid) bar means that we rely on workers to donate their free time and a setup like that allows people to not waste the time to go look for a drink and then make alternative plans.”

In general, people seem to be very much in favour of the new system. Johan told Cherwell, “The largest part deals with stock control so the implication for other students is that we are fiscally responsible and can then funnel funds to more tangible things like an upgraded sound system and such. We have recently added a part to it which deals with the voluntary basis of the bar in the form of a signup system that reminds people about when they are working that has received incredibly good feedback.”

Tracy Fuzzard, common room secretary added, “Johan has single-handedly created an efficient and speedy service simplifying the bar procedures with Raspberry Pi.  This benefits everyone and helps enormously in the day-to-day management of this student-run bar at Wolfson.  Very well done.”

A recent lack of applications for the JCR committee led some of its members to propose a motion to introduce “committee carrots”.

The motion stated that Corpus Christi is “almost unique in offering no tangible benefits to its committee members” and grants rewards to committee members including the termly funding of formal hall and the allocation of a “priority pass”, guaranteeing them a place at formal with up to two guests.

The motion also aims to add proportion to the types of punishment available to committee members, stating that the JCR will benefit “in being able to discipline errant Officers without removing them from their position.”

Harry Begg, Corpus JCR Vice-President, commented, “I see what we are providing as a service to other members of our community, and, although I would hate to see us as separate from the main body, people should be rewarded for that service.”

He added, “In other colleges, members of the executive get many more benefits compared to the limited changes introduced. I think more needs to be done to reinvigorate elections; We should never be in a situation where a position isn’t being contested by more than one person. This is a first step in changing that, and hopefully the next set of elections at the end of this term will be more of an exciting democratic event than the last.”

One Corpus student told Cherwell, “Giving the committee ‘perks of the job’ completely undermines the collegiate, inclusive JCR tradition we have tried to maintain, which allows all students to feel comfortable amongst peers when debating college life. On the other hand, of course, I will definitely be running in our next elections. Whether that’s good for democracy, I’m not so sure.”
However, one second year said, “I think it’s a bad idea to give people rewards for being on the committee. Whilst it has the obvious benefit of making more people more likely to sign up, it means some people will sign up for the rewards alone rather than because they actually care about what they’re doing.”

Another second year at New College told Cherwell, “Ultimately, you want a reward that makes the president’s life a bit easier, but not one that is so significant that it is a reason to go for the position in itself.”

A Cambridge based activist has recorded a meeting with Cambridgeshire police, in which it was proposed that he report back to them about the goings on of student political groups.

The Police were looking for information on society meetings, speaker events, campaign plans and logistics for protests, the video reveals. They also asked the activist to monitor related Facebook pages and to pass on the names of protest organisers. Organisations including the Cambridge Student Union, the group Cambridge Defend Education and political movement UK Uncut were targets of the Police’s interest.

In early October, the activist, who did not wished to be named, was rung by the Police out of nowhere. He was invited to a meeting, where the idea of becoming their informant was proposed. He was offered money, around £30, for his services.

The officer in the video explained the reasoning behind the gathering of such information, saying, “I am asking these questions is because it gives the officers an idea of how many people are going to attend {protests], where they are coming from, how many vehicles are going to turn up, so they can put measures in place to keep them off the road”. The officer then remarked on the impossibility of finding out such information without inside help.

“It’s not because we want to target people and round them all up and arrest them.” he emphasized.

A Cambridgeshire police representative stressed the legality of the officer’s proposition: “Officers use covert tactics to gather intelligence, in accordance with the law, to assist in the prevention and detection of criminal activity.”

Some Oxford students have reacted angrily to the revelation. St Anne’s medic George Gillett found the idea to present a worrying infringement of our privacy: “Oxford students should be concerned about the news of this surveillance, and the police’s vague justification of ‘national security’ as a reason to monitor students’ political activity. Unfortunately the news is characteristic of the growing disregard for an individual’s right to freedom of association”.

The time and monetary of costs of such spying were also flagged by some as inappropriate. “I can’t believe they’re using public money to pay for spying on peaceful demonstrators! I suggest they instead use it for what it is meant for: fighting real crime, and keeping people safe,” says second year Geologist Ryan Fox.

Balliol fresher Xavier Cohen took a cynical approach to the Polices’ justifications: “Police Officers may claim that “it’s not because we want to target people”, but the evidence shows otherwise. After the political arrest of Michael Chessum – the University of London Union President – on campus last week, and the mass arrest of hundreds of peaceful student anti-fascists in Tower Hamlets this summer, it’s clear that the state is working hard to denormalise protest and contentious politics amongst student bodies.”

The head of admissions at the University of Oxford has claimed this week that the admissions system is deliberately designed to nullify the advantages that wealthier applicants can gain through tutoring. Nine out of ten candidates now have to take a subject-specific aptitude test, designed to be impossible to teach for.

Speaking at an international higher education conference run by the Sutton Trust charity, Mike Nicholson, director of undergraduate admissions, said, “I really don’t care whether candidates are poor and bright or rich and bright. I want the bright ones,” he said. “If they’re thick and rich, they’re the ones I’m hoping our process can exclude.”

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said, “Speaking at an event organised to discuss approaches to outreach and academic selection, Mr Nicholson indicated that there was a great deal of mythology and misinformation over the students that are made offers — there is a public perception that we attract the ‘rich and thick’.

“His presentation focused on the very careful and nuanced range of activity taken by tutors to ensure that offers are made to students who show academic potential and aptitude for their chosen course, irrespective of their background, and that significant efforts had been made by the collegiate University over many years to adhere to this selection criteria.”

Oxford spends over £3 million per year on outreach and a further £8 million on bursaries supporting under-privileged applicants.

Tom Jackson, a first year PPEist, commented, “Other than reading, there was no way I could have been tutored for my interview.”

Louise Taylor, a History fresher, said, “Some people at interview had been on courses to prepare for the aptitude tests, but at the interview there’s nothing to hide behind.”

Pembroke college has seen a recent trend for unusual motions at their regular JCR meetings.

One motion was passed on Sunday mandating Pembroke’s Sports Rep, “to obtain a formal, hand-written letter of apology from Christ Church College following the shambles that was their 7-1 cuppers defeat to the might of PCFC 1st XI last Friday November 15th”. It is believed that the letter is currently in the process of being written.

It was claimed that apologies are an important part of the culture of the FIFA video game and should be extended to college football. “It is long past time that these rules were applied to the beautiful game when we are forced to waste 90 minutes of our precious time”, claimed Southworth in response to Pembroke’s win over Christ Church.

It was added that the Sports Rep should seek apologies from opposing teams after any victories of 5 goals or more in the future. In the interest of fairness the first XI insisted that Pembroke teams should also be prepared to write their own apologies.

While the team claimed that this was unlikely to be necessary, a member of a rival team stated, “it’s odd that they would be so bold – especially when they lost their following match at home to St John’s straight away afterwards”.
JCR member Noush Nightingale proposed another motion seeking to establish a Pembroke College Tanning Team. It was noted that in winter, “fewer hours of sun means less time to get your tan on, and therefore generally a pastier JCR population.”

The motion requested funds for the sun cream, fake tan and deck chairs but it was agreed that discussion of it would be postponed to the following JCR meeting.

However, one Pembroke music student was sceptical about the practicalities. “Who would they compete against?” he asked.