New rankings for world universities were released last week by The Times Higher Education Supplement, with the University of Cambridge three rungs higher than the University of Oxford in the World Reputation rankings.

Harvard University topped the table, landing an overall reputation score of 100.0, followed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with a score of 85.0. Cambridge was awarded a score of 80.7 in third place, whilst Oxford scored 68.6 in sixth place.

A spokesperson for Cambridge commented on their website, “We are pleased that more than 13,000 academics have ranked Cambridge third in the world and the highest ranking institution in the UK, a reflection of the excellence of the world-class teaching and research that takes place and tribute to our staff and students.”

Claiming to be the first to analyse the reputations of world universities, THE used an invitation-only survey, compiled of more than 13,000 academics in 131 countries. The overall reputation of world universities was based on “reputation for teaching” (33.3% of overall score) and “reputation for research” (66.6% of overall score).

There were some significant differences between these rankings and the THE World University Rankings (WUR). For example, the London School of Economics came 87th in the WUR but 37th in the reputation rankings. Unlike the reputation rankings, the WUR takes into account what THE refers to as ‘13 separate performance indicators’.

Milan Thomas, a fourth year Economics student at Cambridge, although elated that his university was ranked higher than rival Oxford, admitted that there could be some bias in the survey.

“These rankings are based solely on reputation data collected from a select sub-sample of experienced academics. These academics may be making picks based on perceptions dating back to their days as students, so that there is a bias in favour of older, established institutions with a wealth of past successes at the expense of younger (but nevertheless prolific in the modern day) centres of research.”

Some commentators have also questioned whether the scores were more a measure of how well known the institutions were, rather than an indicator of perceived quality.

Erica Gilman, an international student at Wadham College, commented on the method used to create the new rankings, “You cannot properly rank US and UK schools on the same list because the two countries offer such differing methods of teaching.

“This survey does not take into account smaller liberal arts colleges that have smaller classes and different teaching methods.”

THE maintains that the World Reputation Rankings “are based on the largest global survey of academic opinion ever undertaken”, and are a clear gauge of world universities’ “reputation for academic excellence.”

Oxford University declined to comment on the new rankings.

Student protestors have won the battle in Cambridge to save student bursaries, with the University giving into their demands after an intense week of petitions, protests camps and rallies.

Proposals to slash bursaries from the current £3,500 a year to £1,625 were made by a University Working Group, with a concession of £3,000 per year fee waivers on £9,000 fees.

However, Cambridge University Student Union, and the campaign group Cambridge Defend Education, claimed that bursaries have a greater positive impact for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and that fee waivers, whilst helpful, would lack concrete benefits for those struggling to fund their university expenditures.

Cambridge academics were due to vote upon the fee proposals yesterday in a referendum called a ‘Grace’. CUSU had put forward an amendment to the motion mandating that, “the University continues to provide maintenance bursaries of at least the present levels”.

Despite the fact that 140 academics, over five times the number needed to assure a vote on the amendment, signed the paper, the Vice Chancellor Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz stated last Wednesday that he deemed the amendment “inadmissible as being in substance and effect incompatible with the main purpose of the Grace.”

By over-ruling the democratic process of the Grace, the Vice Chancellor caused some students and academics to call into question the legitimacy of the referendum. Many of these voiced their anger about the decision by signing petitions against it.

Archy de Berker, Pembroke Junior Parlour President, called it, “reprehensible wherever you stand on the fees, cuts, bursaries debate. This represents a violation of the founding principles of the University, and flies in the face of its stated aim of promoting the interests and views of the academics and students that make this University great.”

Professor Nick Gay, a member of the University Council, the body with the responsibility for setting tuition fees and bursary levels said at the time, “I’m surprised the Vice Chancellor has made this decision. I do not think the grace as it stands offers a real choice.

“The amendments would…send a clear message that high fees are not the way forward for HE and mandate the Council on the balance of fee waivers and bursaries.”

On the other hand, another member of the University Council, Dr. Rachel Padman, stated, “I support the decision…The current Grace does not pre-empt anything.”

After criticisms of the Vice Chancellor’s decision, and prolonged protests, including a two day camp-out of over 40 students on the lawn of Senate House and a demonstration by over 800 people on Thursday, the University announced that they intended to keep the bursaries.

A press release from the University on Monday stated that their decision was, “to enhance the present Cambridge Bursary Scheme which offers support of up to £3,500 each year. The Scheme will offer individual students the choice of taking their Cambridge bursary as a fee waiver or a cash sum.”

“This package will ensure that, for those students from lower income households, it is no more expensive to study at Cambridge than at other UK universities. In particular, it will offer enhanced support to those who need it most, and allow students to assess their own needs and access support from the University in the way which suits their circumstances best.”

Oxford University announced today that they will offer both fee waivers and bursaries to students from lower income backgrounds, alongside a rise to £9,000 fees for all other students.

CUSU President Rahul Mansigani commented, “I am delighted that we have forced the University to throw out its plans to cut maintenance bursaries…Cuts to our bursaries would have been disastrous, preventing thousands of students from fully participating in the Cambridge experience.”

Describing the protests that had taken place, he added, “This is a powerful demonstration of how effective Cambridge students can be when they campaign together. We have saved our bursaries!”

Musab Younis, a postgraduate student at Wadham College, Oxford, and an outspoken participant in many of the student protests last year, said,”I think the Cambridge students are absolutely right to try to retain what they can in terms of access to university based on merit rather than privilege.”

Oxford University is going to increase tuition fees to the maximum £9,000 per year from 2012, a decision which came after a meeting of the University\’s ruling council on Monday.

The new fees system, which will come into operation from 2012/13, will work on a sliding scale with students from the lowest income households having their tuition fees capped at £3,500 for their first year, and £6,000 in the following years. Students on household incomes of higher than £25,000 will be charged the full £9,000.

When the details are finalised on Thursday, this week\’s decision will make Oxford the fourth university to officially decide to increase fees to the new maximum level, along with Cambridge, Imperial and Exeter.

The government\’s Office for Fair Access has declared that any universities that choose to increase fees to the new maximum level must invest up to £900 from every £9,000 fee paid in targeting applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Oxford has pledged that, out of the £10 million of extra income that the changes will bring in, the university will ring-fence £7 million to be spent on increased outreach schemes, bursaries and student support services.

Details of the proposed new bursaries were outlined, which will see around 10% of students receive the highest bursary of £4,300 in their first year of study, and £3,300 thereafter. Bursaries will also extend to students with annual household incomes of up to £42,000, on a sliding scale. The Oxford Opportunity Bursary is currently awarded on a sliding scale to those with household incomes up to £50,020.

Cambridge University made a decision in the last few days to offer students a choice of a bursary or a fee waiver, rather than both as outlined in Oxford\’s decision, after protests from academics and students against a proposal to cut bursaries.

The Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Andrew Hamilton, has said, \”These proposals show the strength of our commitment to being accessible for all, and to attracting the very brightest students, whatever their circumstances.\”

In an official statement available on the University website, and emailed to all students, the Vice-Chancellor also said, \”It is deeply regrettable, as the University has made clear, that the Government is reducing drastically direct public investment in university teaching – and that in a country which already spends less in percentage terms than the OECD average on higher education.\”

Many students and tutors have expressed concerns about the University\’s decision. The Oxford University Committee for Higher Education (OUCHE) have been actively campaigning for a complete scrapping of tuition fees and are still working to amend the Council\’s decision.

One of the founding members of OUCHE, and a fellow and tutor in Physiological Sciences at Worcester, John Parrington, commented, \”I know the University is planning bursaries, but I fear that the students most in need of them will have the least information and confidence to apply for them.\”

Univ Politics tutor, Dr Pablo Beramendi, agreed that there were issues with the proposals. He said, \”The current solution hurts everyone because it combines a compromise that means a lot of effort to middle and low income families and extracts far too little from high income families.\”

Beramendi also expressed his view that fees should rise even more for those from higher income backgrounds who were able to afford them, in order \”to avoid this perverse redistribution effect\” and to provide funds \”which fully support talented candidates from middle and low income backgrounds\”.

On the other hand, Jon-Paul Spencer, a first year PPE student at Univ, said, \”As long as the University increase bursaries and advertise the fact that graduates rather than parents pay back the fees then the changes won\’t be as bad as they first seem.\”

Hannah Booker, the JCR Access and Academic Affairs Officer at Lincoln, commented, \”it would have been a powerful message for Oxford to send by not setting fees at the maximum possible level.\”

She added, \”this large raise may put some people off applying who are otherwise very able to get in. I think Oxford need to ensure they publicise the fantastic bursary scheme they have in place to ensure this doesn\’t happen.\”

Corpus Christi JCR President, Jack Evans, said, \”While this package doesn\’t go far enough as I would have liked, I think this does show the impact both JCRs and OUSU can have on policy making decisions within the University.

\”David Barclay and OUSU must be congratulated by students in leading the way on this issue and making sure Oxford remains a institution which is avaliable for everyone, regardless of their financial position.

\”At certain points during this campaign it seemed like the Bursary scheme would be cut, so to get an increase is a massive achievement. Overall this is a day in which, despite the awful situation presented to us by the coalition, Oxford students can be proud.\”

The President of OUSU, David Barclay, told the BBC that he supported the steps the University is taking to lessen the blow to the poorest students and said, \”Oxford has sent out a message that we will not leave a generation of bright young students confused and excluded by the new fees system.\”

The percentage of successful applicants to Oxford who come from state schools has increased by 3% on last year\’s figures, to 58.5% for 2011 entry. If, as many fear, the increased fees discourage students from poorer backgrounds from applying then it will be widely seen as undoing this progress that has been made in widening access to Oxford.

The government has told universities in England that they could be denied the right to charge fees up to the highest level of £9,000 unless they take measures to attract a wider mix of students.

 

The presidential handover dinner on Saturday night at the Oxford Union saw the destruction of Union property as guests allegedly smashed glass, danced on tables and burnt books.

The dinner marked the end of James Langman’s tenure as Union president, and the inauguration of Ashvir Sangha.

A pile of ash leftover from the night’s celebrations remained by the wooden benches outside the Union building on Monday morning. Three sources confirmed that a Union rulebook was burnt.

Speculations have also been made that some of the books burnt on the night included Scientology books donated to the Oxford Union by the late David Gaiman, publicity Director for L. Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology.

President-elect Izzy Westbury said that ‘she can’t really say for sure’ whether any Scientology books were burnt.

However, a number of boxes were found opened with the contents distributed around the Union.

A source reported finding a book about Dianetics, a system believed by Scientologists to relieve psychosomatic disorders by cleansing the mind of harmful mental images, in the General Office.

One unnamed guest commented, ‘Yeah, there were people burning books. I heard people saying they were Union rules.’

A different attendee of the party, who also wished to remain anonymous, described how guests got ‘very drunk’, though there were only ‘one or two people involved’ in burning books. They added, ‘We didn’t know what books they were, but they were definitely burning pages of them.’

Some guests also reported hearing hymns sung in Latin as the books were burnt.

Anthony Boutall, ex fire safety officer of the Union, commented, ‘I just went out for a cigarette. Whilst there was revelry all around me, I didn’t investigate any of it.’

Some members, including president-elect Izzy Westbury, said that they were just burning printed pages. Westbury said, “I definitely did not burn any books.’

She told Cherwell, ‘Early in the evening, myself, along with an Ex-Librarian, who has now left Oxford, jokingly burnt a print-out page of the Union rules. That was all – it was a joke and nothing else and no Scientology books were burnt!

‘With regards to whether anyone actually burnt any Scientology books, I can’t really say for sure. I got quite tipsy quite early on and didn’t really see or do anything exciting or noticeable from about midnight onwards… However I do think, that if there were books burnt, it’s pretty bad behaviour and especially if they had been donated to the Union.’

Westbury’s Facebook status the following morning read, ‘what on earth happened last night????’

A scanner in the general office is also reported to have been broken during the night\’s celebrations. One attendee of the party described how the police came to the Union at 11pm because people were setting off fireworks.

A source told Cherwell, ‘Pictures of old committee have been smashed and taken down.’

One student speculated that the reason for the party getting out of hand was that ‘lots of people came back – old Union officers and friends of Langman’s. They didn’t feel the sense of responsibility’.

Union Officers have expressed concerns that reports of potential Scientology book burnings in the press could deter celebrity followers of the cult-religion from speaking at the Union.

Ashvir Sangha, President of the Oxford Union, has admitted to Cherwell that at least one book was burnt at last week’s presidential handover dinner.

Other senior members of the Union have expressed their dismay that guests set light to ‘stuff’ that had been donated to the society.

In a statement issued to Cherwell, Sangha described the events that unfolded at the presidential handover.

Sangha wrote, ‘The Union is currently looking into the events that occurred in the early hours of Sunday 13th March. It appears that a book was removed from the President’s Office, where it had been secured pending review by the Library, and taken to the gardens’.

He confirmed that ‘the individual then proceeded to set alight this particular book, before it was then extinguished by the Ex-President Hertford College [Laura Winwood].

‘The person who removed the book was an ordinary member and not part of any Union Committee. We are now looking into beginning a disciplinary process against this member in response to these actions, in accordance with the process outlined for such offences in the Rules’.

Under Rule 71 of the Oxford Union Society, misconduct can amount to an ‘action liable or calculated to bring the Society into disrepute’. A disciplinary committee could fine, suspend, or expel the member.

The book in question may have belonged to a collection of publications containing the life works of L Ron Hubbard, bequeathed to the Union by the late David Gaiman, publicity director for L Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology. The boxed collection was reported to have been disturbed during the night.

The Senior Treasurer of the Oxford Union said in a meeting of the Standing Committee on Monday 14th March that he was ‘horrified that somebody gives the Union a lot of stuff, and that some of it is burned. It was just terrible.

‘You may not agree with these books, but this doesn’t mean that you should burn them.’

Whilst this suggests that the book was part of the L Ron Hubbard collection, there is still no official evidence to confirm the speculation. However, Sangha stressed, ‘the Union is taking the matter very seriously and will follow due process in all instances’.

The President also added, in response to claims that framed photographs of previous committees had been damaged on the same evening, ‘as far as I am aware any broken glass was caused through accidental damage and not through malicious activity.’

He emphasised that the only reported instance of any equipment broken on the night was a chair that had lost a wheel, and ‘since been repaired’.

Previously it was unclear whether any books had in fact been burnt, though the rumours made national news on 14th March, when journalist Tim Walker published an article on the Daily Telegraph website entitled ‘Betty Blue Eyes Star Leaves Photographers Feeling Blue’.

The article observed, ‘Gaiman’s dying wish that [the donation of these collected works to the Union] would lead to a spate of conversions amid the dreaming spires now looks deluded.’

A large explosion at the Oxford University Chemistry Department on Friday has hospitalised two students.

The incident caused “significant damage”, with the police closing off Mansfield Road at around 3.30pm on Friday, and the fire brigade called in to deal with the incident.

Many people were gathered behind the police blockades, yet at the time the police appeared unwilling to give any comment.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford has stated however that, whilst the fire brigade were called, “the building was reoccupied and there was no risk to the public and no indication of criminal activity”.

The Chemistry Department reported that a full investigation into the causes of the explosion is now underway, but it appears that much information is currently being withheld due to the fact that the two Chemistry PhD students remain in hospital.

Thames Valley Police have provided no statement on the incident, and the results of the ongoing investigation are currently being awaited.

State school admissions to Oxford University have reached an unprecedented height, according to recent statistics.

Early figures in a report released by the University Press Office last Friday revealed that 58.5% of offers made for 2011 entry have been given to state school pupils. Just 41.5% of offers were made to private school candidates.

Furthermore, 55.4% of UK school students admitted in 2010 were from the state sector. This marks a 1.5% rise from 2009.

13.5% of UK undergraduates at Oxford in 2009/10 were from households with annual incomes of less than £25,000, well under the upper threshold for EMA.

27.2% had household incomes below £50,000, the current cut off point for a government maintenance grant.

The university website states that Oxford is \”committed to recruiting the best candidates\” irrespective of social or educational background.

However, the report argues that disparities in attainment across different types of school present a significant challenge to achieving this aim, with independent school students forming a third of all those gaining AAA at A Level.

The figures suggest that the university\’s outreach schemes, which attempt to dispel many myths about Oxbridge, have been successful in encouraging more state applicants.

The number of applications as a whole hit a record 17,300 for 2011 entry, with 64.3% of these coming from state students.

More than 40% of those who had attended an access summer school received an offer – double the success rate of an average applicant.

Mike Nicholson, Director of Undergraduate Admissions at Oxford said, \”We are pleased that figures for 2010 and preliminary offer figures for 2011 show the proportion of state students gradually rising. We believe this shows the great amount of effort and energy we have put into our outreach work is paying off.\”

Numbers of state school pupils at Oxford could be set to rise further with the new government act on higher education. Universities in England have been told that they could be denied the right to charge fees up to the highest level of £9,000 unless they take measures to attract a wider mix of students. This includes teenagers from state schools and areas with no tradition of progression to degree study.

These new statistics were released just days before today\’s announcement that the university plans to charge tuition fees of between £3,500 and £8,000 for students with a household income of less than £25,000, and £9,000 for all others.

 

President-Elect Izzy Westbury has survived her first test in office as an Oxford Union tribunal ruled that her campaign was not in breach of society rules.

Rival presidential candidate Jack Sennett, reported Westbury to the Returning Officer for using a surprise birthday party thrown just days before the election to ‘hack\’ or canvass votes.

Sennett issued a formal complaint against Westbury and Cyrus Nasseri for breaching Union rules which classify \”actual or attempted soliciting of votes for or against any candidate\” as electoral malpractice.

The event, held at Camera on the 28th February was publicized as \”Izzy\’s Surprise 21st\” on facebook by Nasseri and described: \”A great night to celebrate our friend\’s birthday.\”

Guests involved some of Westbury\’s closest friends from the Society, including former Presidents Laura Winwood and James Kingston, and the new Treasurer-elect, James Freeland.

One guest commented \”It was only about 60 or so of her closest friends who would probably have voted for her anyway.\”

The following day Westbury\’s facebook status read \”Went down to Camera for a few drinks and BOOM, there was a party!!!\”

The complaint, made to Retuning Officer Katherine Sidders, was \”brought against Mr Nasseri and Miss Westbury, under the rule [against]: organised treating by or on behalf of any candidate either between the opening of nominations and the close of poll, so as to draw attention to the candidature of a member.\”

A friend close to the unsuccessful candidate, who wished to remain anonymous, told Cherwell \”He was annoyed.

\”He lost the election to her and he thinks that the party had something to do with it.

\”Even if she didn\’t know, it can\’t have harmed her campaign.\”

The tribunal, made up of three ex-Officers, ruled in favour of Westbury, dismissing Sennet\’s complaint.

On the evening of the 10th March the tribunal \”found that there was no case to answer against Miss Westbury, and Mr. Nasseri was found not guilty.\”

\”As a result, Mr. Nasseri continued in his role as Treasurer-Elect until he succeeded to the office of Treasurer at midnight [on Wednesday] night and at the same time, Miss Westbury took up the office of President-Elect.\”

The incident has prompted wider calls to examine electoral practice at the Union amongst claims of malpractice. Several Union members reported the illegal practices of \”hacking\” and \”slating\” as standard features of Union elections.

One Union insider who wished to remain anonymous told Cherwell: \”If the Union took electoral malpractice seriously, it would have disqualified everyone and disbanded itself long ago.

\”Nobody ever gets to the top without actively campaigning or forming a slate – and that\’s not to mention dirty tricks.\”

Friends of Hasan Ali\’s, outgoing Librarian and unsuccessful Presidential candidate have accused both Westbury and Nasseri of electoral malpractice in the past.

A close friend of both of the candidates commented: \”They\’re great people. The tribunal found them not guilty, and it wasn\’t their fault that Hasan was losing the election. Izzy worked hard for the win and she deserved it; she\’ll do a great job.

\”Slates aren\’t really anything. What you get is a natural group of people who all think each other are the best for the job and so they support each other.\”

When contacted by Cherwell, Westbury and Sennett both refused to comment in keeping with Society rules, which prevent Union officers from communicating with the press.