A vibrant addition to Oxford’s George Street, Rosa’s Thai has come a long way from its humble beginnings as a market stall in London’s East End. Fifteen years on from its founding as a restaurant group by Saiphin and Alex Moore in 2008, Rosa’s is bringing fresh, authentic Thai taste to the Oxford City Centre, using Thai produce including curry pastes from the Huai Yod district and pad Thai noodles from a 3rd generation family business. This was certainly reflected in the freshness of the ingredients served, which gave the food a much richer taste than its takeaway counterparts.
The evening started with a drink – a boozy lemongrass and pandan iced tea, which as with many drinks on Rosa’s menu also came as a non-alcoholic alternative for non-drinkers. An incredibly fruity drink the alcohol gave it a septic edge, reminiscent of the apples contained in a Mcdonalds’ happy meal, an unexpectedly nostalgic taste.
To sample as large a selection as possible I chose the Classic Sharing Platter, which included four of the six starters on offer, with prawn crackers. Intended for 2 people it came in at a very reasonable price of £18 (only £1 more than its vegetarian counterpart) and had plenty to go around. Both the pork and the chicken were well cooked, the former sweet, the latter saturated with the flavour of lemongrass though both were certainly largely improved by their sauces tamarind and peanut respectively. The remaining elements – calamari, spring rolls and prawn crackers – were light and savoury, and worked well with any of the sauces that came on the platter.
The Pad Thai is best described as incredibly filling, which when following a starter and a drink would allow it to be comfortably shared, though had a more-ish quality which more than justified the quantity served. The star ingredient was undoubtedly the peanuts which lent an earthy flavour to the noodles, complemented by the sharp citrus of fresh squeezed lime provided to the side of the plate allowing the meal to be adjusted to taste.
For dessert I tried both the Thai Churros and the Mango & Sticky Rice – both listed as Thai classics. Having never tried churros with condensed milk before I was pleased to find that it was sweet but not overwhelmingly so, providing a light finish to a hearty menu. The Mango & sticky rice was the same if a little heavier though this was offset by the sweet freshness of the mango.
Rosa’s markets itself as a home of “signature Thai hospitality”, a characteristic definitely attributable to this newest addition to the Oxford dining scene. Welcoming staff and comforting food produced a homely atmosphere, giving the whole restaurant an air of ease and familiarity and rapid service allowed the food to be enjoyed at a comfortable pace. Though the price range may make it an only occasional treat for our student readers, I would highly recommend Rosa’s to anyone looking for a fun evening out with family, college or otherwise.
Rishi Sunak has a new pledge as well as a new slogan, ‘Long-term decisions for a brighter future’. It might not be catchy and it might not be bearing itself out at the moment, but for me and millions of young people across the country, it feels like a kick in the teeth. Alongside other failures on university housing, strike negotiations, and environmental pledges, the choice to leave the Erasmus scheme and the failure of its placement have been disastrous. The last thirteen years of Conservative government really could have done with some of that ‘long-term’ decision-making.
Let’s kick things off with Brexit: a flawed plan in the eyes of many, especially the young, but not necessarily one that had to have the catastrophic impact on students and young people that it has. Perhaps most problematic has been the end of the freedom of movement and the Erasmus+ scheme, enjoyed by Britains since 1983 and expanded even further in 2014.The Turing Scheme, the British replacement that the government hailed as an improvement thanks to the global opportunities that it offers, has proved complex, insufficient, and chaotic for universities and students alike.
First, it is worth outlining the key differences between the Turing and Erasmus+ schemes. As of 2014, the EU scheme encapsulated all education, training, youth, and sport programmes covering both tuition fees and some living costs on a reciprocal basis. The result has been thousands of university courses across the country that offer ‘years abroad’, generally in the third year of a four-year course, in which the student is expected to spend a set amount of time abroad either working or studying: I am enrolled in one of these courses myself.
Despite the promise of ‘global opportunities’, something that Erasmus admittedly didn’t offer, the Turing scheme has been a sorry excuse for a replacement. Most obviously, the fact that it doesn’t cover tuition fees has completely changed the landscape. Host universities are expected to simply waive these costs but the vast majority don’t and individual universities are left to establish their own reciprocal arrangements with partner institutions. Evidently, this puts smaller and less well-established institutions at a huge disadvantage and even the largest are only able to offer a fraction of the opportunities they did in the past. The paperwork and processes of setting up these agreements simply takes too much time. Even the University of Oxford, perhaps the most well-established of all higher education institutions in the country, only offered eleven funded places for Spanish students in the academic year 2023/24.
The government points to the Turing Scheme’s support of disadvantaged students as one of its primary advantages and indeed, it offers top-ups to the stipend that others receive on a needs and destination-assessed basis. Depending on whether your country is categorised as high or medium cost, students from disadvantaged backgrounds can receive as much as £490 a month if their stay lasts more than eight weeks. In reality though, that funding is allocated to fewer institutions on a much less reliable basis.
The Erasmus+ scheme reviews its funding every six or seven years, meaning that universities are able to plan ahead significantly and advertise accurately to prospective applicants. In stark contrast, the Turing Scheme reviews its funding each and every year with its first two years showing huge variation (the University of Warwick saw funding fall by 30% in 2023). Even worse, universities discover the total funding that they will receive in July at the earliest and often not until August, leaving students in the lurch and unsure as to whether they will even be able to complete their travels and studies.
Furthermore, students wanting to spend any more than 90 days inside the EU now have to apply for VISAs. Not only is this a costly process that requires paperwork and often certain proof of income and/or funding (clearly disadvantaging students from lower economic backgrounds) but it also forces long-term planning, usually starting six months in advance. Despite this, students beginning their studies in September won’t know how their university has chosen to allocate its funding until August at the very earliest. Again, well-established institutions such as Oxford University are able to offer guarantees and cover the costs if their funding varies: others are left with reduced funds or nothing at all. Despite the fact that now the entire world is ‘open’ to students as opposed to the ‘confines’ of Europe, the Turing Scheme still only paid out £106 million in 22/23. That is £22 million pounds less than during our last year as members of the Erasmus scheme in 2020.
Combined with the ending of free healthcare and the difficulty in obtaining any kind of work visa, students and young people are simply discouraged from undertaking long-term study periods or work placements. Instead, there has been a substantial rise in those finding short-term solutions, sometimes only lasting two weeks. The depressing thing, of course, is that it didn’t have to be like this. During negotiations, the European Union invited the UK to become an associated third-party member of the Erasmus+ programme alongside Turkey, Iceland, and others. Instead, much like until recently with the Horizon science programme, the UK declined the invitation. Unlike Horizon, the UK will now have to wait until 2027 to get another opportunity.
The impact of a hard Brexit, of course, goes far beyond university students and the shortcomings of the Turing Programme. Those travelling and looking for work before, after, or instead of university study are hugely limited. Personally, leaving school in the last year of the transition period, I received several internship and job offers from across Spain, even during the COVID-tainted summer of 2020. Now, with vastly more experience in an array of industries and in the third year of a degree at the University of Oxford, I have not succeeded in securing any of the 56 that I have applied for to date.
As much as some bemoaned the influx of young people from across the continent and the diversity that they provided across several industries, especially hospitality, before Brexit, the same is now true in reverse. It is simply not possible to obtain a right to work in the vast majority of EU countries without a job offer and the vast majority of companies won’t even process an internship or job application without the right to work. Try squaring that circle.
All that said, I am writing this in a café in Sant Pol, just outside of Barcelona. I have indeed made it here to study on a master’s course in hospitality management – albeit entirely self-funded. I’ve managed to make this small part of this year work but my biggest concern is not just for the rest of my twelve months and my life, but for those who aren’t able to pay their own way onto such courses. Slowly but surely, the UK government’s ‘Long-term decision making” is putting language learning and the most valuable of cultural experiences behind a paywall. That future isn’t feeling so bright…
Image Credit: Andrew Parsons/ Number 10 Downing Street CC BY 2.0 Deed via Flickr
St Hilda’s college has purchased two spacious Victorian homes to convert into accommodation for post-graduate and visiting students. The new properties, 14 and 16 Norham Gardens, were bought at a combined cost of 12 million pounds, being funded by St Hilda’s endowment funds.
The purchase of 14 and 16 Norham Gardens is a further addition to St Hilda’s growing portfolio of student accommodation. In 2022, St Hilda’s bought 11 Norham Gardens and 38 St Giles’, finalising the plan to offer accommodation to all undergraduate students for the duration of their degree.
The property is located in the vicinity of University Parks, surrounded by a landscape garden of 0.6 acres. The building itself has over 1,600 square metres of space. Initially, 14 and 16 Norham Gardens will contain 13 ensuite bedrooms and by early 2024, Norham Gardens accommodation is expected to house up to 45 students following further renovations.
College Bursar, Chris Wood, told Cherwell: “St Hilda’s College has a reputation for providing a welcoming and supportive environment for its students. We aim to provide a platform for our students to succeed, and to improve their experience at Oxford.
“Providing student housing at rents generally lower than those in the private sector is very important in this regard. We now have sufficient accommodation to house all of our undergraduate students for the whole of their courses, if they wish, as well as a good supply of graduate room.”
The Norham Gardens properties were formerly owned by the Catholic Charity, The Society of the Holy Child Jesus. Wood also told Cherwell that the two parties “worked together closely to ensure mutually beneficial outcomes”.
As a former women-only college and as a college founded by a woman, St Hilda’s has been keen to draw attention to the blue plaque found on the walls of the new property, featuring social reformer, Violet Butler. Butler was an advocate for women and young people in Oxford in the early 20th century. Wood told Cherwell that Violet Butler “very much lived her life in the spirit of St Hilda’s motto “non frustra vixi”, which translates to “I lived not in vain.”
On 21 September St Hilda’s announced the purchase of 14 and 16 Norham Gardens on the college website, explaining that the College is continually working to house more postgraduate and visiting students than ever before. St Hilda’s currently has approximately 200 graduate students.
The Norham Gardens properties will act not only as accommodation but the college hopes that they will form a St Hilda’s community in the centre of Oxford.
New College has ended scout cleaning of undergraduate student rooms and will replace the practice with regular cleanliness inspections.
The change was approved by the College’s Governing Body in Trinity. In the same term, the New JCR overwhelmingly rejected a college proposal on the matter, with 16% in favour of removing room cleaning and 84% in opposition. 118 students participated in the vote.
Oxford colleges have employed scouts to regularly clean their students’ rooms for hundreds of years. Today the system varies between colleges; many do not employ cleaning staff at off-site accommodation.
The College referred to the change as an “extension” of a policy already in place at New College’s Weston Buildings Graduate centre.
Despite this, a second-year student at New said there has been a “genuine lack of communication with all those involved” including the scouts themselves, who “as term starts, still don’t know what the expectations are with what they should be doing.”
The Home Bursar at New said there are no planned job losses linked to the change. It was not clear whether cleaning staff’s net working hours or payment would be reduced.
Today only Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham universities still clean students’ rooms. The practice has faced criticism for coddling adult students and subverting their privacy, as well as underpaying and overworking cleaning staff.
A Cherwell investigation has found that the average rent increase among Oxford colleges for 2023 sits at 8.62%, up from an average of 7.6% last year. The increases could be anything between 5% to 13.6%, and these are set to provoke hardship for some in the coming year amidst the cost-of-living crisis.
St Peter’s College is facing one of the heftiest rent hikes, at 12%. The college faced criticism last year when they unveiled the proposed rent prices of two new accommodation blocks – the cheapest room in these accommodation blocks being £5589 for a 27-week lease. On the other end of the scale, St John’s College and St Queen’s College (the first and fourth most wealthy colleges, respectively) increased rent by only 5% this year.
Wadham is another college facing large rent increases. After an initial proposed 14% increase, which would have resulted in extortionate hikes of between £682.20 and £922.74 annually, the JCR negotiated their increase down to 11%. Wadham SU wrote an open letter to Wadham College Trustees, declaring the increase “inexcusable” on the basis that it would provoke extreme financial hardship among students. Within this open letter, Wadham SU threatened action such as withholding of rent or an SU boycott of college food if rent negotiations could not be reopened, before agreeing on the final 11% figure.
Many colleges use the Van Noodern Index (VNI) to determine the rent increase for the coming year, however recently there has been a shift away from the VNI figure. The index measures “collegiate inflation” and has been criticised in the past for a lack of transparency. Furthermore, in a recent investigation, Cherwell revealed that VNI presents consistently higher figures than standard inflation indices. For example, the VNI for 2023 came out to 13.6%, nearly double CPI in June 2023, which stood at 7.9%.
Christ Church is set to have the highest rent hike across colleges for the second year running, strictly following the VNI figure of 13.6%. However, Christ Church offers extensive financial assistance schemes – there is a 50% and 25% discount on rent and “season tickets” for college dinners, for which the household income threshold has been raised in line with the VNI figure.
A Cherwell poll of 356 students found that 45% were “very concerned” about accommodation costs, 42% were “mildly concerned”, and only 9% were “not concerned at all.” When asked how the rent increases would affect them, many students said they would not be able to live in college accommodation due to rising prices, seeking private rental instead, with most saying they would have to make cuts to their budgets. One student also added: “Many many less pints.”
With student maintenance loans set to increase by a mere 2.8%, many students fear it will not be enough to tackle rising costs. One Pembroke student told Cherwell: “With my maintenance loan increasing by around 3% and rent by 8.5%, it means my loan no longer covers my accommodation costs… Even with having got very lucky on the room ballot, I am entirely dependent on what my parents can contribute and my job as a private tutor to fund food, socialising, and everything else. It means this year is going to be a lot more difficult than last and I’m going into it not thinking about my studies but of the tight budget I’m going to have to keep to.”
When considering the effect of the increase for the future, the St Catz JCR President and Vice President told Cherwell: “As St Catz was founded as an access college, our founding principles of equality and fairness must be reflected in our rent. We believe that further rent increases should be paused or heavily subsidised following recent years’ adjustments (11.8% rent increase in 2022 and 7.7% rent increase in 2023). It is essential that on-site accommodation remains an accessible option for all students regardless of background or financial circumstance.”
Some colleges have opted to increase their hardship funding as a result – for example, Balliol has increased the maximum award for their Student Maintenance Grant from £1000 to £1500 per student, and the maximum award for their Hardship Grant has increased from £500 to £1000. However, some students have expressed concerns about accessibility to their college hardship funds.For example, whilst the hardship fund at St Catz has been expanded, students have argued that it “ignores people’s financial realities” to require students to have less than £1000 in their bank accounts to be eligible. The St Catz JCR President and Vice President added: “We acknowledge and welcome College’s recent commitment to expanding the hardship fund as it is a lifeline for some students. We call upon them to translate this commitment into tangible and immediate actions, including reforming the way ‘hardship’ is assessed. Expanding the hardship fund should not remain a symbolic gesture, but a practical step towards ensuring that no student is hindered by financial constraints – as was the aim of the College when it was founded.”
I have a recurring nightmare where I’m being stalked by a doppelganger. She looks better than me, and dresses better than me, and makes jokes that make people laugh so hard that milk shoots out their noses. In one dream, she walks in with a new top that’s exactly my style, and when I ask her where she bought it, she responds, “Actually, my dead grandmother passed it down to me–sorry!” Cut to me–wearing a shameful frown and my college puffer-mangy jeans combination for the fourth time that week. Just as it starts to feel like I’m living a remake of Black Swan, I wake up.
It’s a weird dream, but what’s weirder is how it made me realize my defiant desire to be special; unique. If you ask me: would you lose your arm or always be one step behind someone who is just like you? My response: does the missing arm make for a good story?
I don’t believe I’m alone. Across the board, people are preening in anticipation, vying for a chance to prove to the world that they are different, and hence, cool. In nearly every online trend, there’s a new distinction to be made; a new way to categorize and differentiate people. Is she the blonde to your brunette? Which one of you is dark curls and which one is watercolor eyes?Are you the mom of the group, or are you the baby? Are you a Blair Waldorf it girl or are you an Elle Woods it girl? (god forbid you be a Bella Swan pick me girl). Are you Chase Atlantic punk rock or are you Arctic Monkeys leather clad? Are you black cat or golden retriever or husky or orange cat or doberman or dachshund or chihuahua?
It feels like everyone is living the Black Swan nightmare, losing faith in their one-of-a-kind-ness, and clawing for some form of distinction. We need to complain, in an almost childlike manner, “Hey! Look at me! I’m special!” Of course, everyone is special. But have we always cared so much to prove it? Today, it is drilled into the head of every single person: Stand out. Be different. Every icebreaker asks its interviewee: “What makes you special?” The obsession with separating the self from the crowd has become pervasive. Now, from the clothes we wear to the music we listen to, there is a palpable and constant pressure to differentiate ourselves, to be saying something.
It is unclear to me whether this cultural obsession with individuality has grown in recent years to consume us, or whether I only grew to notice it. But I suspect it has evolved, and I suspect the culprit, as usual, is capitalism. In a post-Fordist capitalist landscape, everything is constantly fighting an uphill battle to differentiate–companies, brands, people. Since industrialization, things have become more and more homogenous, from the products we consume to the workplaces we dedicate half our lives to. Everyone has the same CeraVe skin wash (I give it 2/5 stars) and the same converse shoes, the same iPhone and app widgets. Everyone shares the same future: tech or finance. In a world where everyday looks like a sea of blurred faces and blurred brands, novelty and difference is sacred.
As I became more enthusiastic about thrifting and growing my tchotchke collections, two things became clear to me. #1, My wardrobe and possessions identified me with more precision than my thumbprint or any biometric data ever could. And #2, It was the tip of the iceberg (and the beginning of the end for my bank account). Because it is not just how we dress or decorate–it is also our music taste, our media intake, our dreams and ambitions. We have become what we consume.
It is no surprise, then, why we have become so fixated on thrifting and collecting; it is a means to find one-of-a-kind items which can define us, to show to the world the one-of-a-kind type of person that we are inside.
Companies did it first; they rarified products to make us consume more. New fall line, new seasonal flavor, new brand deal, limited time item drop! You make it exclusive, you make it coveted. Then comes the trusty invisible hand, and suddenly a million slightly different marketing ploys are competing with each other to sell the most product. Now, the entire cereal aisle in grocery stores is filled with identical cereals by different names.
Somewhere along the way though, our identities got mixed in with the breakfast cereal. Instead of solely being obsessed with what we consume, we have also become obsessed with how we market ourselves. We desperately advertise our identities the same way Kellogg advertises its corn flakes. Economics has become us. We view ourselves as consumers, but also view people–including ourselves–as commodities. We buy stuff to build a unique identity with which we can associate, then project that identity to sell an image of who we are.
So we obsess and stagger different aesthetics and combinations of labels to define ourselves as if to say, look, I’m relatable but different!, not so unlike the cereal aisle.
With the next General Election on the horizon (betting markets currently place the best odds on somewhere between October and December 2024), the attention of the media and much of the politically minded public has turned to the question: how do the Conservatives intend to fight a campaign that current polling and smart money say they’re almost guaranteed to lose? In the run-up to this week’s party conference, new government policy announcements have turned to two major fields that the Tories appear to intend to fight the next election on – immigration and climate change, or more specifically a complete reversal of recent policy on the two.
The question many in and out of the party, myself included, are thus left asking is the following. How sound a strategy can it be to completely U-turn on government policy of the last four years, let alone to fight an election on it?
Whilst one can sense the mystical hand of the great minds that brought you notable Conservative victories in 2015 and 2019 in this sudden reversal, the logic behind it is quite clear – the Conservatives know that they will not win new votes, but they also do not need to. Some electoral models suggest that even a lead of only 4% (38% to 34%, a substantial fall from 2019), would be enough to secure the Conservatives a majority. They therefore think that they have identified two policies they can use to mobilise the traditional Conservative bases of rural and semi-rural voters, and especially the elderly, as well as their important 2019 swing voters: those in formerly industrial constituencies, those without university degrees, and those who supported Brexit. These are the demographic groups that traditional wisdom have assumed to be the most sceptical of immigration and climate change policy. These policies are designed to prevent defections, especially to the Reform Party; both of the last YouGov VI polls place this defection rate at 16% of 2019 Conservative voters, compared to 13% and 12% defecting to Labour.
That being said, these groups are, if not comparatively then at least nominally, generally quite progressive of both issues anyway. The Home Secretary’s assertion last Tuesday that being discriminated against for being gay is not sufficient to claim asylum, is not likely to be well met by voters, even those traditionally sceptical of immigration. According to the World Values Survey, “low” acceptance of homosexuality in the UK stands at only about 19-20% of those with “low” incomes or “lower” education levels, whilst rates of high acceptance were consistently high regardless of age group. ONS data suggests people of all ages, levels of qualification, and income are consistently very concerned about climate change, and unified behind the commitment to net zero before 2050, or “even earlier”. The point being that the hills on which the government seem intent on dying on may not be as fertile ground as they had hoped.
So, what might be a better campaign strategy?
First, one has to accept that there is no policy the government can propose that will fix any of the problems the country faces today. Based on that assumption, on January 4th, the Prime Minister set out his five priorities for 2023 and asked the public to judge him on them. What was smart about them was that, with the exception of the fifth (stop the boats – a policy which is not necessarily opposed to immigration in the same way that the government have turned over the summer), they were all factors which were likely to improve regardless of government action – to halve inflation (at the time this stood at about 9%, just over 10% excluding housing), grow the economy, reduce debt, and cut NHS waiting lists. In the case of debt reduction and NHS waiting lists, both were likely to continue to improve as the country recovered from the effects of the pandemic, without the influence of the government (and public understanding of national debt is notoriously bad, meaning measures such as the debt-to-GDP ratio, and the current deficit rather than nominal debt were likely to distort this even further).
The beauty of this message however, lay in its first two points – to grow the economy, and to halve inflation, both being macroeconomic factors almost entirely beyond the influence of the government, and both of which are almost guaranteed to improve the globe over. As the world recovers from the dual inflationary shocks of the Russo-Ukrainian war (and its effects on food and energy prices), and the supply chaos of China in 2022, so too is the inflation rate virtually guaranteed to reach more manageable levels (with the 12-month rate already down to 6.7% CPI). Similarly, “growing the economy” – i.e having a GDP growth rate of more than 0%, or literally not being in recession – was not a particularly high bar to set. In short, by setting laughably achievable economic goals and hoping that the public (whose main electoral concern at the moment remains the economy), would lack the economic know-how to understand the complete lack of agency the Conservative government had in these positive trends, was a remarkably sound electoral strategy, or at least one which gave them the best chance at winning a tough battle. Besides having the added benefit of not tying the government to policies they may come to regret, confidence in throwing themselves at the mercy of macroeconomic trends should also be buoyed by current growth and inflation; the Bank of England forecasts that inflation should break 5% by the end of this year, and return to its 2% target in the first half of 2024, whilst the BCC estimated growth for 2023 to finish at 0.3% and 2024 at 0.4% (the OECD estimates are slightly higher), which is slow but importantly meets the target of growing.
And this economic chicanery can be applied elsewhere too. At the Liberal Democrat conference this week, Ed Davey scorned the Conservatives for sending interest rates soaring – of course interest rates are beyond the control of the Conservatives but this speaks to my point as a whole – a point on which it is laughably easy for the Conservatives to retort something about helping savers. Over the last year, the FTSE 100 is up only 1.46% and 4.72% over five years, whilst the FTSE 250 is down in both measures. This ultimately means that rising interest rates, whilst obviously punishing borrowers, means that traditional savings accounts are competitive investments for the first time in over a decade.
Overall the party appears to have spent much of the weekend working its current strategy with the more hard-line of the party claiming that multiculturalism has failed in Britain, and some even courting Nigel Farage as a possible member. That being said, I know which campaign I’d rather hitch my bandwagon to.
Image Credit: Sergeant Tom Robinson RLC/MOD/Open Government Licence version 1.0 via Wikimedia Commons
The Zoom screen flitters from darkness to the gradual clarity of humanoid pixels. I am looking at the official face of tomorrow. As the Mock COP28 delegate and I launch our discussion of a manifesto against the existential threat of a world overheating, “all that is solid melts into air.” (The Communist Manifesto, p.218)
Molly Scrase-Kings is a third year biochemist at Hertford College. While some may have spent the summer jet-setting and globetrotting in the name of life experience, Scrase-Kings was collaborating with hundreds of youth leaders in the name of saving the planet. At Mock COP28, the Oxford biochemist and the team of young delegates solidified a manifesto for climate education.
Someone’s gotta do it. And infernal hell knows it ain’t going to be the University of Oxford.
A bandwidth away from me, in a seat of climate progressivism is Molly Scrase-Kings. After completing work for the conservation charity, Raleigh International, Scrase-Kings was encouraged to apply for this conference of young people tasked with coming up with a plan for global climate education. She explained to me that her journey from Oxford biochemistry to UK delegate at Mock COP28 was detached from the University.
Before going into the details of her time at the conference, I was interested in the extent of Oxford’s involvement in Scrase-Kings’ path to Mock COP28.
“Did you discover the Mock COP28 opportunity thanks to Oxford?” I asked. A firm “no” followed.
“Oh, Ok. But, Raleigh International came from your tutor or the Careers Service emails, right?” I followed up hopefully.
“Well, no.”
And so, I found myself enquiring – some four minutes into our eighteen minute discussion – “have you at all found out about anything to do with conservation or climate justice through the University?”
“Um, no. Not really.”
There you have it; those words were floating in the metasphere of our Zoom call. It was final. The University of Oxford, among the world-leading universities in earth sciences research, had had no hand whatsoever in taking one of its own from dreaming spires to pioneering international climate policy.
Scrase-Kings, therefore, is an example of the student will, untarnished by university-based, ‘adult’ involvement, to contribute actively to improving our prospects against the climate crisis.
This will was to be exercised at Mock COP28 where the primary concern, as Scrase-Kings explained to me, was to come up with a rejuvenated manifesto for tackling the crisis that the adult world’s tired policies seem to perpetuate. Mock COP28 presented a unified youth statement created by delegates from across the globe to education ministers and climate policy representatives in order to “really try to raise ambition for climate education in all of these countries,” as Scrase-Kings summarised.
Photo credit: Molly Scrase-Kings
The biochemist said: “we’re told we’re the generation that should sort this out. We’re going to have to deal with it at the worst level. And yet we’re not supported to have the skills to deal with it or even the ability to deal with just the anxiety of it.” Mock COP28 is not a replica of the ‘adult’ version but a conference on the integration of climate crisis management into the lives of young people in the most common way known to them: through their education.
Climate education is becoming increasingly concrete as a result of youth campaigns such as Mock COP28. But it’s a branch of education that is absent from these hallowed halls of learning. It could be a blameless move from Oxford. Ultimately, it’s the government’s “shoehorning of climate education” into pre-existing policies of youth engagement, as Scrase-Kings observed, that gives places like Oxford the excuse to not prioritise – at least consistently – climate education. For the deniers, climate education is perhaps a product of the “tofu-eating wokerati” and for the others, this existential threat is debilitatingly frightening. We’re in an unhelpful culture of stalemate and a relentless lack of progress makes for boring education.
Learning at Oxford, Scrase-Kings said: “we need to equip ourselves for the changing world and to ultimately change the culture around climate education. But I haven’t seen that in my degree and I haven’t seen it in my friend’s degrees really at all.” Is this Oxford’s fault or a governmentally encouraged antipathy towards climate education?
Molly Scrase-Kings thinks that we’re at a point where climate education “should be threaded into every subject.” A poll conducted by Cherwell found that 44% of participants strongly disagree with the statement that “the climate crisis comes up frequently with tutors/teaching staff or in lectures/tutorials”. Indeed, 63.4% of participants are either dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied with the University’s response to the climate crisis.
Where respondents were less uniform, however, was in stating where responsibility lay for leading action against climate change. Should we bother holding the University accountable when students should be leading the response anyway? Cherwell poll respondents were level in agreeing that the University has more responsibility than students to act (23.1%) and being neutral on the balance (28.8%).
To the Mock COP28 delegate, Molly Scrase-Kings, “Oxford has a massive responsibility. It is a full front runner, and it should be a leading role model, not just in academia.” Currently, however, it appears that the climate crisis is not confronted regularly enough even in the subjects where you would expect it to be. Scrase-Kings continued: “I’ve heard so many complaints that there’s not enough diversity for environmental economics. And there’s not much in biochemistry at all.”
In Cherwell’s poll, other students reflected on being dissuaded from action against climate change not by academia but by the rigorous nature of Oxford’s student activism. One respondent wrote: “I do find Oxford activism quite intense; it has an established wrong and right way to deal with issues and I find it intimidating.” There is no doubt that activism is student-led at Oxford. Scrase-Kings said that from the University “I see glimmers [of action], but it’s really student led and student pushed.” It being so student-heavy and with only “glimmers” of University support, it’s perhaps no wonder that the activism scene is intense and demanding.
As you go higher up, support for tackling the climate crisis evaporates further. Molly Scrase-Kings told Cherwell she is beginning work with SOS-UK to fill in the gaps in the ambitious (quixotic?) plans for climate education announced by the DfE last year. Which are, as Scrase-Kings put it, a “bit late” anyway.
The plans, once again, are symptomatic of a government that is just a tad too busy to deal with the climate crisis. They detail a hollow programme of distributing learning resources in “carbon literacy training” (whatever that means!) to every nursery, school and college by 2025. This will be enabled by the work of people like Molly Scrase-Kings at SOS-UK and the reward for such selfless charity will undoubtedly be reaped solely by No 10. Yet again, this policy appears as fodder for the government to shirk responsibility and could explain why leading institutions like Oxford aren’t doing very much leading in the field of climate education. Should they have to if the heads of the nation aren’t bothering?
Yet, none of this really answers the question why well over half of the Oxford students participating in Cherwell’s survey remain dissatisfied with the University’s engagement with the climate crisis. What is it exactly that is holding the University back?
After André Breton, Diego Rivera and Leon Trotsky, a condition of the construction of a manifesto is understanding that “without exaggeration never has civilization been menaced so seriously as today.” This is understood widely by the students of Oxford; they have resorted to teaching themselves with the launch of the termly ‘School of Climate Change’ (Oxford Climate Society).
For now, it would seem students have the power. Mock COP28 was hopeful: “the summit showed me [Molly Scrase-Kings] the power we can have when we collaborate and communicate across borders.” The young delegates came up with a manifesto for climate education. It commits to a form of climate education where, as the Mock COP website states, students “teach the teacher.”
Of course, 55 years on from the Mai ’68 student protests, if we’ve learnt anything at all, it’s that students must be the teachers of change.
Students of the world don’t appear to have much choice other than to unite!
The ‘pro-life’ Students for Life society has once again been the cause for protests at the Student Union Freshers’ Fair. One protestor held up an “Abortion is a Human Right” sign in front of the stall, while two sabbatical officers – the VP Activities and Community and the VP UG Education and Access – joined in, holding up an SU infographic about abortions.
The protestor, who wished not to be identified, told Cherwell that they had been in front of the stand for roughly one and a half hours. They stated: “I’m here standing outside the Oxford Students for Life stall at Freshers Fair because I don’t think they should be here, and because I think people should be aware that there is opposition to this in Oxford.”
“We’ve had a really positive response from students coming past. So many people thanking us for being here and that really shows why we need to be here: to show the students, show the Freshers that really so many of us are welcoming and do believe they deserve the right to an abortion, even if a few of them don’t.”
They said that the stallholders have “interacted with us a lot”, adding that “they’ve been very friendly.”
In a statement to Cherwell the SU stated: “Oxford SU is a supporter of the right to peacefully protest and the right of students and groups to hold diverse philosophical beliefs in line with the law. Both groups of students were able to excercise [sic] those rights this afternoon.”
Students for Life told Cherwell: “Numerous people of all ages and positions in the university approached our stall this year to sign up, thank us for being there, express appreciation and support for what we do, or ask how they can access the Student Parent Support we offer. All the conversations we had at our stall, including those with people who disagreed with our position, were insightful, respectful and valuable (we hope to both sides). Because of this, we are saddened by the fact that, in the eyes of some, our presence requires protest.”
“What is more, in light of recent years’ events, we find it regrettable that SU officers deem it acceptable to behave in such an explicitly political manner. Nevertheless, we support and respect others’ rights to voice their views and protest peacefully, as we do our own.”
The 2023 men’s tennis calendar certainly had fans anticipating big things, with fresh, young blood threatening to disrupt the status quo and upset the tennis hierarchy by challenging the top players. With the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open running throughout the year on three different surfaces, some players justified their ambitions of deep runs and slam victories, marked with strong performances, whilst others fell victim to shock losses in a mixed year for tennis’ elite. Below I discuss the winners and losers on tennis’ biggest stages in 2023:
Winner: Novak Djokovic
The biggest winner beyond any doubt, on the men’s tour this year in terms of slam performance. Djokovic’s imperious displays on the court resulted in three slam wins, with only Alcaraz’s five-set Wimbledon victory preventing Novak from achieving the elusive calendar slam. His supremacy was underlined by total domination in the other three finals, where he won 9-0 in sets against three opponents who have been touted as a new generation of champions. Even at the staggering age of thirty-six, Novak is not to be usurped and his trademark return game and mental strength have enabled him to claim a record-breaking 24th men’s singles slam, a record he has made little secret of wanting to hold, with his command showing little sign of ceasing.
Winner: Carlos Alcaraz
The only man who stood between Djokovic and a calendar slam this year and he is the potential successor to inherit the throne. Whilst only attaining one slam could be cynically regarded as an underachievement for Carlos, the numbers don’t tell the full story. Skipping the Australian due to injury before being swept aside by Novak in the semis at Roland Garros in a cramp-afflicted match, the 20-year-old admitted to nerves affecting him physically and mentally, a reminder of his rawness and inexperience at this level despite the hype. Despite this, success beckoned at Wimbledon; unfazed by the ghosts of Roland Garros, he held his nerve to overcome Djokovic in a thrilling five-setter, winning his second major title. Whilst he failed to defend his US title, a semi-final loss to an impressive Medvedev shouldn’t discredit his year at all and next year promises even greater things for Alcaraz.
Winner: Ben Shelton
Shelton has been the dark horse of the men’s tour, both winning plaudits and drawing criticism for his performances and certainly creating a media frenzy. A monstrous serve combined with an effective volley game and heavy groundstrokes catapulted him to the quarters at the Australian Open, with Alcaraz stating after their match later in August that Shelton hit the ball harder than anybody he had played against. Arguably, a lack of exposure at the elite level contributed to early-round exits at the French Open and Wimbledon before Shelton capped off the year on hard courts again at his home slam. He endured a seriously difficult run, facing four former slam semi-finalists, before coming up against Novak in the semis, who seemed to take exception with Shelton’s vigorous fist pumps and efforts to rouse both the crowd and himself. Djokovic made his sentiments clear at the end of the match when he mocked Shelton’s celebration, a ‘dialled-in’ phone gesture which Novak imitated, offering a frosty handshake. Nevertheless, a stellar year from Shelton yielded two runs to the quarters at minimum in his first full year on tour, a seriously impressive introduction.
Loser: Casper Ruud
It may be a potentially controversial take to suggest that Ruud has had a bad year, especially considering that he reached the French Open final, and dispatched formidable opponents such as Rune and Zverev en route. Although he was seen off by Novak comfortably, his run here promised a fruitful year. However, Ruud fell in the second round of the other three slams to opponents that should have been beaten by a player of his rank and calibre. His loss of form has been startling and he has struggled to find consistency throughout the year, resulting in very early-round exits, with players exposing severe vulnerabilities in his game. Ruud admitted that he needed to play a more aggressive style and hopefully adopting one will enable him to bounce back and have a more successful 2024 season.
Loser: Felix Auger Aliassime
It’s been a dire year for Felix at the slams, who suffered similar issues to Ruud – a severe lack of form and consistency. The twenty-three-year-old has been heralded for years as a possible successor who could win slams and lead the next generation, with his potential underlined by the addition of Toni Nadal, Rafa’s uncle and coach, to his coaching team last year. This faith was renewed by a strong 2022 season, where he won four titles and became just the third man to take Nadal to five sets at Roland Garros, promising a rewarding 2023. A fourth-round exit in Australia this year was an adequate result, albeit to a player on paper he should have beaten, but this was followed up by three successive first-round losses in the other slams, interspersed with other early round defeats in lower-level tournaments, suggestive of mentality issues too. A loss for him on his birthday at his home tournament to a much lower-ranked player in August epitomised his season and a break in the slams may be beneficial for helping him reset mentally.
Loser: Jannik Sinner
Branding Sinner a loser in the context of the grand slams this year is extremely harsh on the one hand; after all, a semi-final and two fourth-round runs are pretty similar results to Shelton, whose year has been a success. However, the relative ambitions of the players act as a key factor, and by Sinner’s account, it has probably been a somewhat underwhelming year for him. Sinner has been twinned with Alcaraz as the other potential heir to the throne once the older generation retires, with their rivalry compared to Federer and Nadal’s. However, whilst Alcaraz won his second slam, Sinner’s inability to make it count in the big moments has hindered his progress, underlined by his Wimbledon semi-final straight-set loss to Novak, whom Alcaraz overcame in the final. Sinner only bettered one slam result from last year, underperforming in the rest, leaving the door ajar for even newer talent like Rune to establish themselves as a stronger prospect. He is still an obvious candidate for future slams, but at present Sinner needs to take it a step further to match Alcaraz’s level and prevent him from getting left behind.
Image Credit: smarch0987 // CC0 1.0 DEED via Flickr
