What does matriculation mean for Oxford students?

Everyone who wants to work for an Oxford degree has to matriculate, which means about 4,000 undergraduates a year as well as the students who come new to Oxford to start postgraduate courses. Each student has to be matriculated as an individual. Matriculation makes you a member of the University for life. It means you will always be able to use the Bodleian Library and when you graduate you will be a member of Convocation and able to elect the Chancellor and the Professor of Poetry. Even if you did not finish your degree or got suspended you would still be a member. This is not like membership of a club or society. It is a different kind of belonging. ‘Universitas’ is the Latin word for a ‘guild’ or corporation. The University is an independent body with special skills that are ‘knowledge’. The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars still constitute the University when it acts as a legal entity. So you become part of this body along with more than eight hundred years of others who have done so before you.

When did it originate and why?

Matriculation goes back to the medieval requirement that every Regent Master should keep a register. These were the Masters of Arts who taught undergraduates and who formed the main ruling body of the University. The register established who was a real student and deserved the University’s protection in the frequent town-and-gown fights. It also allowed a record to be kept of the student’s progress through the course to the stage where he could be examined for his degree (or ‘her’ degree from 1920). In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, once the colleges began to admit undergraduates, it became a formal university ceremony. In the nineteenth century the word ‘matriculation’ started to be used for the qualification for entry. Until 1960 Oxford set its own examinations, and the statutes still require ‘evidence that each candidate…is qualified for matriculation’.

What do students wear for it?

Students wear a cap, a gown and ‘subfusc’ for matriculation. Subfusc is dark formal clothing with a white shirt and a white bow tie for men and a black bow for women. Oxford students recently voted to keep this traditional gear for examinations when it was suggested that they could be allowed to wear ordinary clothes instead. They liked the sense of occasion it gives.

What is the Latin speech that the Vice-Chancellor reads out during the ceremony?

‘Scitote vos in Matriculam Universitatis hodie relatos esse, et ad observandum omnia Statuta istius Universitatis, quantum ad vos spectent, teneri.’
‘Know that you are today added to the Roll of the University and bound to obey all the statutes of this University so far as they apply to you.’

Are there any student traditions based around matriculation?

There’s been a recent tradition of the Mexican wave, and students generally celebrate by getting drunk or going on a tourist bus tour in full academic dress. There are matriculation dinners in colleges, which have their own traditions. It isn’t an initiation ceremony involving painfully proving you’ve got what it takes, though. You got in. You’ve got what it takes.

Have there been any changes to the matriculation process over the years?

It’s changed since the Middle Ages with the arrival of colleges which began arrangements for just a few Fellows, but slowly began to take responsibility for teaching undergraduates. Nowadays the college admits the student and presents him or her to the University to be put on its historic roll. You become a lifelong member of your college as well as a lifelong member of the University.

Professor Gillian Evans is author of the forthcoming book ‘The University of Oxford: A New History’

The Fabian Society is no ordinary thinktank, it is a piece of political history. They are the oldest such group in Britain, stretching back to 1884, the year after Karl Marx died and two decades before the Labour Party, to which they are now affiliated, was established. That position, between revolutionary socialism on the one hand and working-class representation on the other, neatly describes the position that Fabians have held for the century-and-a-bit since. Fabianism is almost synonymous with social democracy and gradualism; it may also be the factor that best explains the failure of a Marxist party to take root in Britain, unlike most of Europe in the 20th century.

Sunder Katwala clearly takes this history seriously, claiming proudly that from a young age “some of my heroes were Fabians”. Early Fabians included the founders of the London School of Economics, Sydney and Beatrice Webb, as well as members of the intelligentsia like George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells. Katwala admits that his influences were not all from this mould, “I read a lot of Orwell when I was younger…Orwell hated the Fabians”. But this is something else that he insists upon throughout our interview: the importance of “pluralism”. He talks of pluralism within the Fabians, pluralism on the Left, pluralism in national politics. It is clearly founded on a great belief in the constructive value of debate and criticism, because “politics is by its nature collective”.

Katwala says that it was just such an inclusiveness that brought him to left-wing politics and eventually to the Labour Party. He was “political” from the age of fourteen or fifteen and found himself reacting strongly against the Thatcher and Major governments of the eighties and nineties. Just as he holds up the Webbs and Orwell as heroes, he offers Norman Tebbit as a significant figure in his political development, though for very different reasons. Tebbit’s crude ‘cricket test’ of Asian integration awoke a questioning of identity and inclusion, but also a reaction against a party that thought this was significant. “I did support England at cricket” he tells me, “but my Dad didn’t, so I kind of felt the divisiveness of that”. The issue of ‘Britishness’ and what it means is still something that interests him greatly; he resists those on the left who consider such debates a distraction from tackling social inequality and injustice, insisting instead that understanding how people perceive themselves and identify with others is crucial to “build coalitions”. Again, pluralism is an essential precondition to progress in Katwala’s view.

‘If you risk losing then you also want to fight with pride for the causes you believe in’

I was not surprised to learn that Sunder Katwala studied PPE at Oxford. ‘Who didn’t?’ is sometimes a better question where the British political establishment are concerned. It turns out we took very different modules; he admits thinking Philosophy of Mind was a bit of a “mind-fuck”, preferring instead to immerse himself in the history of British politics, where the Fabians, incidentally, loom large. I was more surprised that he had not been a member of the Labour Club during his time in Oxford. To be part of OULC in the early nineties, he explains, you had to be a “miserabilist”. Katwala was more interested in the cut and thrust of Union debating, though not Union politics. The arch-pluralist obviously resented the stand-off between Labour Club and the OUCA-dominated Union, meaning that he sat uncomfortably in the ‘wrong’ camp – plus, he adds, it made the Oxford Union “a bit too tosserish”. Plus ça change…?

Despite eschewing the Oxford Labourites, Sunder Katwala admits to being “gutted” when Neil Kinnock lost in 1992, the first election he ever voted in. What emerged after that was a genuine enthusiasm for the New Labour project, which clearly put winning at the heart of the centre-left strategy. He tries to sound upbeat about New Labour, reminding me that they were “popular” in the mid-nineties, and importantly for him they were “pluralist” as an electoral force. In the dying days of a twelve-year Labour administration, cynicism is the default reaction when people look back at Blair’s rictus grin and Alistair Campbell’s spin. So, what changed? Katwala’s analysis is interesting: “they didn’t change enough” he suggests. When I insist that you don’t change a winning formula he explains that New Labour was a “very of its moment, mid-nineties phenomenon” and it “struggled to deepen and move its analysis on”.

He is not a vicious critic of Brown, however, offering much praise for the “real Gordon” that lurks promisingly behind Brown the media bungler. I can only chuckle when he insists that in Brown “there’s quite a lot of the Jed Bartlett in the West Wing, that kind of politician with conviction”. It is not that I doubt Gordon Brown has these impulses on international development and child poverty, but he has been so abysmal at showing it. I agree with Katwala that “you win or you lose in politics but if you do risk losing then you also want to fight with pride for the causes you believe in”.

I suggest to Katwala that the Fabian Society’s affiliation with the Labour Party limits its independence, but he insists not. He views the role of an organisation like the Fabians as being “up-stream of the government” in debates, to be a campaigning force not an apologist for current policy. As such, they constantly look eighteen-months to two years down the line to what the government will be tackling and in which ways they can shape the debates to achieve the “fairness and equality” which lie at the heart of Fabian thinking. He articulates a vision of the thinktank tackling issues at three levels: principle, policy and politics. Ignore any one of these pillars and you get a deficient programme. In particular, he decries the “tone taken by the likes of the Economist”, which is content to believe it has the answers but doesn’t care whether or not they are politically sellable. Such ‘Cassandras’ in politics are of no use to anyone. Far better to be down-to-earth, principled and forthright: perhaps the Economist could learn a thing or two from Sunder Katwala.

For decades now, the European Union has been the elephant in the room of British politics. The mere mention of it is enough to send a shudder down the spine of most political commentators, and to get otherwise hardened politicians running for cover, muttering about an urgent meeting they had forgotten. After the bitter battles of the 1990s, it is perhaps understandable that many Westminster veterans are still somewhat shell-shocked. No-one enjoyed the in-fighting of the Major years, and no-one would want to repeat it. But is avoiding the issue really the solution? The EU is too big to simply ignore. It generates the majority of our legislation, and controls crucial policy areas such as farming, fisheries, immigration, environment, health and safety, financial services regulation and many more. As well as contributing £16.4 billion this year in direct payments from taxpayers into EU coffers, the impact of EU regulations and policies on the UK economy are estimated by the TaxPayers’ Alliance to cost almost £2,000 a year per person. At any time, anything that cost Britain £118 billion a year would be of huge significance, but in the middle of a recession and a deficit crisis it becomes even more important.

The EU also alters our global standingas a nation. Enthusiasts for the project would argue that it allows little Britain to have a share in a loud voice on the world stage. Sceptics such as myself, would instead point out that it projects a communal diplomatic message around the world that simply does not represent Britain’s opinions or best interests. Either way, with the Lisbon Treaty set to create the posts of EU President and Foreign Minister for the first time, the issue demands serious and close consideration. The failure of the vast majority of our politicians to discuss Europe has harmed the reputation of Westminster democracy. Leaving aside whether it is right or wrong to hand over so many powers to Brussels, the collective silence of the main political parties about the fact that such a handover has taken place is hugely irresponsible.

Growing numbers of people feel that it makes little difference how they vote – and they are right. Think of all the millions who wrote to their MPs urging them to Make Poverty History. Most of them received a reply expressing agreement and promising that their representative in Parliament would work to change our trade policy to help the world’s poor.

Had MPs been honest, though, they would have instructed their constituents to write instead to the EU Trade Commissioner, who is in almost total control of our trade policy. Indeed, it is the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy that requires the protectionist barriers which so harm sub-Saharan Africa. By promising to change something which they do not control, MPs misled their constituents and added another bundle of fuel to the growing bonfire of disillusionment with Parliament. It is crucial that there is an open debate about all aspects of the EU’s work – the cost, the democratic deficit, the erosion of our international standing and much more. While our politicians may be terrified of the subject, the public most certainly are not. Obscure vetoes, dusty treaties and dustier bureaucrats may not excite them, but the real life impact of European policies most certainly does. Some of the most controversial issues on the doorstep – fortnightly bin collections, post office closures, climate change, banking rules – fall within Brussels’ remit. All the opinion polling shows that the people are itching to have their say about Europe. Of course, the majority are sceptical, but people on both sides of the debate must deplore the fact that our national discourse has become so stunted. It is staggering to consider that you now have to be 52 years old to have ever had a vote on the European project. If you ignore an elephant in the room for too long, it will trample on you. The Irish have had a chance to debate it twice – now, in Oxford, we will begin our own debate in earnest.

Ruth Lea will be speaking in favour of the motion This House Believes That There Is Life After Brussels at the Oxford Union on Tuesday 20th October, from 8.30pm.

Finally, it seems, the Conservative Party have taken a brave decision and a definite stance on something. The commandment has come down from on high; “The-society-formerly-known-as-OUCA” must go, and out of the smouldering ashes of “Oxford’s biggest student society” must rise a bright, new “Conservative Future”.

“The society must prove that it has indeed traded in the rusty, pollutant, OUCA old-banger, rather than simply giving it a new coat of paint”

But is it really that simple? Can Oxford’s Conservatives really shake off decades of bad press and iniquity, and morph into the progressive and tolerant organisation that the Conservative Headquarters desperately desire? As the proliferation of “scare quotes” above indicates, there is scepticism. There are two key hurdles to overcome before Oxford’s Conservative community can consign OUCA’s shame to history and emerge as the dynamic, student political group that a university like Oxford deserves. Personnel and public opinion. Anyone who thinks that the rotten elements of OUCA will simply melt away into the night alongside its acronym needs to think again. ‘Port and Policy’ can become ‘Diet Coke and Debate’, it means nothing if the malicious elements of the society are allowed to continue to dominate at the expense of reasonable and committed Conservative supporters. This change cannot be effected through top-down edicts. It may be that hustings are under the most scrutiny in Conservative Future elections, but more important to the society will be the choices made by its membership; whether to reject the under-hand, bigoted crony-ism that dogged OUCA and focus on its campaigning and promotion of the Conservative Party in Oxford, or prove the ancient adage that old habits die hard. The society must prove that it has indeed traded in the rusty, pollutant, OUCA old-banger, rather than simply giving it a new coat of paint.

“OUCA’s shame was the University of Oxford’s shame, but forever cutting the Conservative party from our political scene would also be to our discredit”

And public opinion? It is difficult to say how long it will take for the ghost of OUCA to leave off haunting the collective Oxford memory. If Conservative Future takes the right steps forward, rooting out the old, destructive elements and grounding itself in values of inclusivity, progressiveness and a commitment to politics rather than port, then I sincerely hope that the Oxford student body will forgive and forget. Though it may be difficult to wipe the grins from OULC faces for some time (let’s be honest, there’s not much to smile about on their side at the moment…), it is only right that Oxford has a strong Conservative society that can engage students in national politics. OUCA’s shame was the University of Oxford’s shame, but forever cutting the Conservative party from our political scene would also be to our discredit.

It is amusing coincidence that talk of the rebirth of Oxford’s Conservative Society should emerge now. In the same week, Mandelson set Labour Conference alight by promising that if he could come back, so could the Labour Party. ‘And if Labour can come back, maybe there’s a chance for Conservative Future’, quipped an OULC friend. This is unfair. Quite frankly, a snowball in hell would quite fancy those odds. But if Oxford’s Conservative community are committed to following up their change of name with a change of character, perhaps we can look forward to a much brighter political future. Conservatively.

I don’t understand the Lisbon Treaty. I’ve read it. It’s 272 pages long, and details lots of roles, rules, and competences for various institutions throughout its length. It’s not that the language is beyond comprehension, but the implications of some of the terms used, and the subtle significances of what are important inclusions and exclusions pass me by.

However, last week, over 1.7million Irish voters passed their judgment on the document. The repercussions for Europe are real; subject to the Czech Republic and Poland, the Lisbon Treaty will finally come into force, bringing about a European President, and numerous other changes – but you’d have to pore through the document to find details on those. So how were the Irish voters to reach a reasoned and informed conclusion?

Referenda entail large media campaigns. Politicians can be allowed to abandon their party whip to encourage the people to vote their way. Adverts and petitioning similar to General Election fare are common. Supporters of referenda highlight the massive attention this draws to the issue. It’s true. Both sides are forced to substantiate their arguments and convince the public of the benefits of their stance, meaning the public are engaged in a debate which would otherwise be held separately from them.

In terms of the actual issue, thorough, strenuous and prolonged debate in a referendum can be said to draw out all the flaws in the arguments of either party. This constructive debate is surely beneficial to all, and when voting day arrives, the public will can prevail.

Or so goes the theory. In reality, this ‘engagement’ is questionable. Though holding a referendum raises the likelihood that the people will discuss and consider an issue, there is always the strong chance that the slickest campaign with the biggest political endorsements will win, rather than the most brilliantly argued.

There are other faults too. Turn-out tends to be lower than in General Elections, for understandable reasons. This, in turn, reduces the legitimacy of the result. Additionally, there is the thorny issue of when a referendum is required. The more they are used, the weaker the mandate they provide – they are a political currency open to debasement. In addition to this, they can open huge chasms in party politics. When politicians wear their colours on their sleeve and are defeated by the public, the day-to-day repercussions as they continue to legislate, faced with other politicians who ‘won’, have a profound reputational effect.

And then there is the wider issue. Referenda undermine representative democracy. By asking the people to choose directly, politicians’ representative roles are suspended. The logical conclusion of this argument is that, if our leaders poll us on difficult issues, their role as representatives is diminished to the point of irrelevance.

There is a difficult line to tread here. Issues of sovereignty – the usual ‘rule of thumb’ for when a referendum is required (and cause of much argument for Labour with regard to the Lisbon Treaty) – are undoubtedly crucial. They ought not to be decided by the parliamentarians who happen to be in office at the time of the issue. It would seem logical that fundamental changes to our constitution should have the public vote.

But, on the other hand, the problems that beset shiny media campaigns and the vested interests that politicians can have in calling referendums, including trying to discredit political opponents or relying on the public’s vote to heal internal party divisions, all weaken the case for this most direct of democracy.These are very real shortcomings.

And finally, crucially, the central problem resurfaces. Hardly any of those 1.7million Irish voters will have read the text of the Lisbon Treaty. All will be relying on media, much of it privately owned and with vested interests of their own, issuing second-hand understanding of the issue. And some voters will have been trying to deliver a political message to their representatives on issues ancillary to the referendum’s content.

The most qualified people to assess the merits of treaties of this kind are probably the people who work with legislative documents every day. They are the politicians we elected to make these calls. Though in these days of duck ponds, second home allowances and moats, it’s not a popular argument; the fact remains that at some point we’ll have to trust our legislators to do their jobs in our best interests. If we don’t like it, we do have the power to petition parliament and the media. And if this still fails, we can make our feelings known at the next General Election.

This may not be enough when it comes to issues of sovereignty. Whether referenda ought to be used at all is a complex issue.

Maybe we should hold a referendum on it.