Travelling cross-country has never been easy, but UK transport is, predictably, delayed in its arrival to the 21st century. Long journey times and sky-high train fares make travelling difficult, frustrating, and expensive.

With friends spread across the country, students feel this acutely, but not always equally, as regional differences in transport infrastructure inevitably rear their ugly heads. This might be north versus south, or urban versus rural, but the ramifications for friendships, social lives, and wallets remain burdensome. 

The poor state of rail travel in the UK is well-known. However, it remains a key method of transport for students. Flights have limited luggage, burdensome security measures, and an outsized impact on the day. Coaches involve excessively long travel times, at almost double that of  trains. Driving requires a car and a licence, and right now the waiting time for driving tests is prohibitively high. With all these hurdles, it seems that the railways are the only option that works for everyone. But just how and why is it so difficult to get around? How exactly does this impact students? And is this impact equally shared? 

For this article, I conducted a survey on rail travel, asking students about their experiences and thoughts. 20 students responded, with details of the regions they travelled from, and how issues with trains had impacted their university and social lives. I also asked them how they would suggest improving this. 

Higher fees, longer waits 

The most striking concerns were the cost of journeys and the unpredictability of travel times. Firstly: the cost. 80% of respondents to the survey reported having been deterred from making a rail journey due to its price. Railcards do little to make journeys more affordable, with train fares in the UK at nearly four times the equivalent flight price. British commuters spend five times as much of their salary on rail fares as their European counterparts. Privatisation of the railways was supposed to bring greater competition and efficiency, but instead, average fares have increased by nearly 25% since the 1990s. A complex mess of many different profit-seeking companies are left charging different amounts at different times for different tickets. Fares are significantly cheaper if booked well in advance, but student plans are anything but organised, and opportunities are often last-minute. Outrageous fares charged for bookings within a month or fortnight present a serious limitation. 

A second key area of concern is journey times and accessibility, which more than 50% of respondents reported as a deterrent to rail travel. A train from Edinburgh to London can take up to six hours (or longer, if delayed). The journey between Paris and Marseille is 100km longer, but at least three hours shorter. According to the Office of Rail and Roads, between April and June 2025, 31% of train services were delayed, creating unnecessary headaches when trying to get anywhere. Additionally, there was a sharp difference between different regional operators for punctuality. Avanti West Coast and TransPenine Express were the least punctual, with 42% and 30% of their services running late, respectively. The most punctual, with 93% of services running on time, were C2C (which serves East London and Essex) and Greater Anglia (which connects the East of England to London). 

The UK also lags behind in investment into high-speed rail and other rail infrastructure . The UK has only one rail line with an operating speed of more than 125mph: HS1. Attempts to expand this were an unmitigated disaster in HS2. The project intended to create a high-speed link between London and the North. Instead, £81bn later, both the Leeds and Manchester sections have been dropped from the project. Now reaching only Birmingham, there is no clear indication on when it will be completed.

After 14 years, travel from the North to the South has not improved in any meaningful way. The north of England is left without the same transport links that connect London to Birmingham, the capital to the continent, and that criss-cross many other European countries. With the axing of key North-South services, it is now quicker to get from London to Brussels than to Hull. 

This lack of investment and the regional divides it has exacerbated have very real effects on student life, both social and economic, during the vacations and term time. This was reflected in the results of the survey, where students were asked about which region of the UK they lived in, and how they rated the overall performance of the railways. 

Regional vs London experiences: A tale of two trainlines 

On the whole, students rated rail travel poorly, but there was a clear connection between the score given and the student’s home region. On a ten-point scale, students in London and the South-East rated the railways around two points higher on average than their peers elsewhere. Most respondents outside these regions gave scores around 3, while those in London and the South-East hovered around 5. The disparity in connectivity and reliability was borne out in this increased dissatisfaction. Still, travelling is easy for almost nobody – 85% of respondents considered the state of the railways to have negatively impacted their ability to meet up with people and access opportunities. 

The over-representation of the South-East in Oxford admissions exacerbates regional divides in connectivity. According to the 2021 census, the population of London and the South-East made up 30% of the total population of England and Wales. However, students from both regions make up 50% of domestic students at Oxford. As a result, a majority of students are concentrated in a better-connected region. The gravitational pull to the South becomes social, as well as economic and cultural. London becomes the natural destination for meetups. However, the price and difficulty of the journey is not equally shared.  

This was not just a north v south divide – those in rural areas struggled with poor connection, no matter where they were in the country. One respondent, from Devon, found it impossible to visit their friends in Norfolk. The price of the train rendered it impossible, and there was no coach alternative. 

For survey respondents outside London, the concentration of Oxford students around the city was a large concern. Students described the expense and the unreliability of getting to the capital. This unreliability contributed to many also having to purchase accommodation, adding to the cost of train tickets that regularly stretch past £100. Few could manage to get there more than a few times over the vacation, with loneliness following. One respondent from the West Midlands struggled with “being a four hour train away to the function”, particularly when most of the people they knew lived in London. Over 40% of those who considered the railways to have negatively impacted their social lives mentioned London and the difficulty of getting there as a key impediment to seeing friends. 

Those in the South-East and London lamented being deterred from visiting friends, especially those who lived in the North, because of the cost of trains. Journeys closer to them were cheaper, leaving fellow southerners the more natural choice for visits. However, due to the distribution of Oxford students across the UK, and the issues with rail connections outside of London, this was not an option open to many students outside the South-East. The 35 miles from central London to Sevenoaks can be covered in 23 minutes on the train, while the 40 miles between Middlesbrough and Newcastle takes an hour. 

Meeting with an eye on the departures board

Fleeting meetings during the vac can also prove more stressful than during term. One respondent wrote of their difficulty in making “casual meetups happen”. With the amount of planning required, impromptu coffees, walks, or pub trips vanish. The stress of a trip is compounded by the knowledge that this may be the only time you see your friend for six weeks. Sudden delays can ruin meetups which have been long planned and anticipated, causing heartbreak and forcing students to try to find workarounds. During vacations, these feelings are the exact opposite of what students want after an already-exhausting term.

Friendship weren’t the only relationships strained and frustrated by poor connectivity. Romantic relationships and seeing family were also raised as areas of difficulty in the survey, both in vacations and termtime. One student wrote that it’s “too difficult to see my partner” during the vacation, and another in a long distance relationship highlighted how train delays further narrowed their already-limited time together. 

Cost and difficulties in transport meant students missed out on seeing family during term. For those in the North, rural South-West, and other regions of the UK, journeys to Oxford can run above five hours, whether driving or using the train. An overnight stay is often required. The expense spirals, resulting in trips home or visits from family being rationed. Students spoke of missing birthdays and family support, while others could go home every weekend. 

The fast-paced nature of term-time life clashed with the delays of the transport system. The closer to the time a booking is made, the more expensive the ticket, with drastic hikes in the week or fortnight before the journey. As a result, students could not enjoy unexpected opportunities with the support of their family. One respondent spoke of finding out the day before that they would be playing the lead role in a production, but the cost of transport and impossibility of finding a hotel meant none of their family could see them.  

Solutions 

Considering improvements, the survey responses followed two main paths. Namely, nationalisation or an increase in student ticket concessions. “Nationalisation”, “subsidisation”, and “public ownership” were terms that came up often. One response argued that nationalisation would lead to a joined-up system across the network, while another advocated for “total nationalisation” to, in their words, “undo Mrs Thatcher’s crap”. Nationalisation would bring UK rail in line with European countries like Italy, Spain, and Germany. According to a study by Action for Rail, commuters in these counties paid at least five times less for their rail fares. 

The current government seems to agree that nationalisation is the path forward, promising the implementation of a public ownership programme under the umbrella of ‘Great British Railways’. This may be a longer-term solution that shifts the status quo. As it is, the legislation for public ownership has not passed, the transition will be slow, and any future investment into projects like HS2 will have to wait for years until nationalisation is completed. Considering the unpopularity and failures of the current system, a complete rehaul through nationalisation could offer a path to improvement. If properly implemented, it may be a worthwhile effort from the government. How long students will have to wait for such improvement to materialise, however, is impossible to know.

On a more incremental scale, there were proposals for increased ticket concessions, such as a “student specific railcard”. This would be far less invasive and difficult to organise, but how effective it would be is questionable. Railcards for 16-25 year olds already exist. If these aren’t student railcards, then what are? 

Similarly, suggestions for a form of off-peak tickets for students with discounts at the beginning or end of term could work in reducing cost, in addition to having “more student concessions” generally. However, with so much variation in vacations across universities, such a solution seems impractical, and would not deal with isolation during vacations. Scotland has scrapped higher fares for peak travel times, an example which the rest of the UK could then follow. “Free bus travel” was also proposed, whcih would be useful at boosting local connectivity but doesn’t tackle the main structural issue.

Overall, the poor and unequal state of public transport across the country doesn’t just make friendships more difficult and costly during vacations. It also makes travelling home and participating in opportunities more difficult for those who live far from London. Even with the much-vaunted future implementation of the Great British Railways scheme, past precedent doesn’t inspire much hope. A government short on cash, and the cancellation of HS2’s northern section, make it unlikely that the demand for rail travel amongst younger generations will be met. Structural improvements tackling the higher fares and long journey times are therefore essential. But for now, it seems that poor connectivity will continue harming student friendships, relationships and opportunities, disrupting the inclusivity the student community strives for. 

Image Credit: Uncle Alf, CC BY-SA 3.0, via
Wikimedia Commons

Over the last year, universities have become flashpoints of protest and backlash. Student protest is nothing new, but the heavy-handed government response is notable. In the US, President Donald Trump’s administration has utilised the federal government’s power against higher education institutions, particularly those in the Ivy League. Spending cuts, attempts to deport international students, and allegations of civil rights violations have all been leveraged to influence the way universities work. Much of this has been in reaction to pro-Palestine protests, as well as a broader right-wing suspicion of university ‘indoctrination’.

Far-right figures in the country echo a Trumpian attitude to ‘woke’ universities, and high-profile protests have taken place in the UK. So, is the state of higher education in the US a sign of things to come for the UK, and for Oxford? Will similar tensions translate to similar government action, and similar university response?

Existing tensions

Universities have long been a target of the far right, with familiar claims made on both sides of the pond: that they are places of indoctrination, that they are inhibiting free speech, and that they are being ruined by diversity initiatives. Allegations of anti-semitism on campus, in relation to pro-Palestine protests, have also been raised.  

In a climate of rising anti-intellectualism, British institutions have not been exempt from these accusations. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has suggested that anyone who is an EDI officer should “look for another job”. Zia Yusuf, Reform’s head of policy, similarly stressed that universities had become “indoctrination camps”. This echoes Trump’s attack on higher education diversity initiatives, and marks deepening ties between the British far-right and the MAGA movement. 

One of the most prominent voices in this special relationship is James Orr, the associate professor of philosophy of religion at the University of Cambridge, who has been considered the “intellectual mentor” of US Vice President JD Vance. Orr is an outspoken critic of the “dogmas of EDI” that, in his words, “distort decision-making at every level of the modern university”.

The 19-year-old Warwickshire County Council leader George Finch recently accused universities of being “conveyor belt[s] of communism” where students are taught a “coercive curriculum”. Finch, who chose not to pursue any education beyond sixth form, argued that “you’re being told what to think, you’re being told what to say”.

I spoke to Annelise Orleck, a history professor at Dartmouth College, about the current crisis facing universities. She rejected the accusation that she is indoctrinating her students: “We teach our students how to think, [we] give them critical tools to think and ask questions in ways that make the current powers that be uncomfortable.” Orleck, who has taught at Dartmouth for over three decades, reflected that there were problems facing higher education, but they were not the ones being identified by the far right: “It has been said of universities, even before Trump took over, that they are… hedge funds and weapons portfolios with a sideline in education, so they can write all that off in their taxes.”

The crisis

Widespread student protests in both the UK and the US have set these tensions alight. On International Workers’ Day, 1^st May 2024, faculty members joined Dartmouth students at a pro-Palestine protest. In the rural New Hampshire town of Hanover, state police were called to break up the demonstration. As Orleck, the former chair of the Jewish Studies department, took out her phone to record the protest, an officer slammed her to the ground. Her arrest, caught on video, went viral. 

Recalling the night of her arrest, Orleck said that the protesters “had no idea what was beginning”. In Orleck’s words, she was arrested for “trying to fulfil [her] responsibilities as a teacher and protect [her] students”. She considered that the experience “marked the beginning of this assault on peaceful protest and freedom of expression on our campus and on many campuses across the country”. 

Trump’s pledge to “fire the radical-left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics” culminated in a battle between the administration and the United States’ oldest university, Harvard. In April 2025, $2.2 billion in funding was frozen by the government as the President demanded that Harvard be audited to assess the “programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture”. In response, Harvard sued the administration. 

The State Department revoked the visas of around 300 international students (as of April 2025), and attempted to block Harvard from enrolling more. The administration has also used its financial power over universities, cutting diversity-related research grants while offering a preferential funding plan to all universities and colleges that adopt certain policies. They involve requiring ‘single-sex spaces’, capping undergraduate visas at 15% or less, and abolishing units that “punish” or “belittle” conservative ideas.

In the same month as the Dartmouth protests, Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) set up encampments at the Natural History Museum and the Radcliffe Camera. The University threatened legal action if they didn’t leave, a move that Cambridge had already pursued. A few weeks after the arrest of 89 students and staff at Dartmouth, 17 student protesters were arrested in a pro-Palestine sit-in at Wellington Square. Thames Valley Police have since dropped the charges, and the University recently stopped disciplinary measures against the students. 

While far-right rhetoric against universities is intensifying, government action has not yet followed, and certainly not to the extent seen in the US. The Labour government has not publicly criticised any universities, nor used its powers to intervene into university matters. No matter what Reform says, the party is not in power. No matter how strongly it states its stances, it cannot match the firepower of the Trump administration because it does not have access to its tactics. Even if it did, they may prove less effective against Oxbridge. Oxford’s colleges are financially autonomous of the University, and the University itself has independent sources of income, like research and donations. But with 36% of undergraduates admitted in 2024 being international, Oxford is similarly vulnerable to a crackdown on visas. This presents an ominous picture for what may happen if Reform do as well as they are projected to at the next election (projected to be the largest party, but 25 short of a majority). Much depends on how universities and other institutions choose to respond to governmental pressure.  

Response

In response to increased government crackdown, US colleges quickly sprang to Harvard’s defence. Over 600 institutions signed an open letter from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) as “one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education”. Calling for “constructive engagement”, the letter demanded the protection of their shared ideal of the “essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom”. All Ivy League colleges signed the letter, except Dartmouth. 

Sian Beilock, the President of Dartmouth, defended her decision in an email to students and faculty, claiming that open letters are “rarely effective tools to make change”. Two years prior, she signed an open letter as president-elect to support diversifying the semi-conductor industry. Dartmouth, unlike its peers, has continuously stressed their neutral position, staying away from the political limelight. “We can do better by staying focused on what we are: educational institutions, not political organisations”, wrote Beilock. The exact same rhetoric was employed during her address to the matriculating Class of 2029: “We’re not a political organisation.” 

Beilock’s actions gained praise from conservatives and members of the Trump administration. Despite claims of neutrality, the former chief counsel at the Republican National Committee, Mathew Raymer, has been appointed as Dartmouth’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. In an op-ed titled ‘Trump Is Right About Birthright Citizenship’ in The Federalist, he argues that children “born to aliens” should not have birthright citizenship. As the new head of the college’s Office for Visa and Immigration Services, this calls into question how apolitical Dartmouth truly is. 

Dartmouth has yet to face direct funding cuts, unlike other elite colleges, such as Columbia and Cornell. For supporters of Beilock, her unprovocative strategy towards the Trump administration has paid off. The college’s international students have by and large avoided becoming the next target of the administration – as long as they don’t protest. 

When I asked Orleck about Beilock’s actions, she said it seemed to be a “strategic decision”, however, she added that “collaborating with fascism, in the end, is never a good idea”. Perceived as having perpetrated a betrayal against Dartmouth’s Ivy League peers, close to 3000 alumni condemned Beilock’s refusal to sign the AAC&U letter in a petition. 

“Appeasement can feel safe and easy – if that means giving in to the demands either of student protesters or of vocal donors”, wrote Beilock in The Atlantic in September 2024. It is difficult to overlook the irony at play. Choosing the “safe and easy” option, Dartmouth appears to have appeased the Trump administration.

But the power of the administration was not unlimited. Judge William G Young considered that the Trump administration had acted unlawfully in its deportations. In a September ruling, the Massachusetts federal judge held that non-citizens hold the same free speech rights as citizens under the US constitution, and that the targeted deportations infringed upon this right. Similarly, Judge Allison Burroughs overturned Harvard’s funding freeze. The administration is appealing both cases, and much will hinge on the pro-Trump Supreme Court’s treatment of the issue. These rulings suggest that the bark of government pressure does not always match its bite. Appeasement may be an unnecessary step in the long run.

Oxford impact 

As the far right’s potential assault on higher education in Britain looms large, we must then ask: how has Oxford acted in the face of an increasingly global threat to higher education? Unlike Dartmouth’s decision to stay under Trump’s radar, cowing to the administration’s demands at the cost of academic integrity and the safety of their students and staff, British institutions must not merely protect their reputations but fight to ensure our institutions foster a diverse and inclusive culture. 

In response to the protest that took place in Oxford, eleven Jewish faculty members wrote an open letter to the Vice Chancellor and the Chief Diversity Officer, urging the University to “drop disciplinary proceedings…against the 13 students who occupied Wellington Square”. The signatories pushed back against the idea that pro-Palestine actions in Oxford were related to antisemitism, saying: “antisemitism is a serious and ongoing threat, but there is no credible evidence that the encampment, in which Jewish students were also actively involved, led to a rise in antisemitism or that it was experienced in a uniform way by Oxford’s highly diverse Jewish community.”

In Dartmouth, Orleck echoed the sentiment in the letter, arguing that “the problem is weaponizing antisemitism as an excuse for cracking down on speech and speech rights and the right to peaceful protest”. Orleck said: “We’re in a dangerous moment of repression and as a Jewish woman…and a Jewish Studies scholar and a Jewish historian, I find it really, really frightening that it’s being done in the name of protecting against antisemitism.” 

The University of Oxford’s Chief Diversity Officer, Tim Soutphommasane, has made it clear that “the UK is not the US”. Recognising this distinction, he says, is “a critical starting point for any approach we have. And we should be very mindful of allowing culture war excesses from the US contaminating the public culture here”. He has warned that British universities “can’t be sucked into a vortex of culture war politics”, arguing that “public institutions in the UK, including universities, have an important role in promoting equality of opportunity and social understanding”. 

Last year, Oxford launched the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan as the institution “strive[s] to be a leader on equality, diversity and inclusion in society”. Addressing the four areas of culture, diversity, work and leadership, the plan seeks to “strengthen a culture of belonging”, “increase staff and student diversity and representation”, “ensure teaching, research and engagement practices are inclusive” and “support academic and professional leadership”. Clear targets were outlined, including increasing the proportion of BME and female professors. Working alongside the LGBTQ+ group, a racial and religious inclusion ‘task and finish’ group was established. More work is clearly necessary to see improvements within Oxford, but the administration’s dedication to EDI initiatives provide a stark contrast with Dartmouth’s appeasement in the face of government pressure. 

Where next? 

“I’m constitutionally optimistic”, Orleck said wryly when I asked her about the future of higher education. Nonetheless, I am unconvinced that she has faith in her optimism. Her attempt to remain positive does not seem successful: “I want to be a purveyor of radical hope. That said, I and everybody else I know… is very worried.” 

The UK often feels shockwaves from political actions in the US, but the difference between Dartmouth and Oxford’s reaction to increasing anti-diversity rhetoric shows that there is still a place for resistance. The outcome of cases brought by universities provide a chance for optimism, and a reason against immediate appeasement. As universities brace for what may be an existential threat, let us only hope that Oxford can one day become a “purveyor of radical hope”.

Image Credit: Kenneth C. Zirkel, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons