The Conservative Party has sparked anger in the Oxford student community after backing the disgraced former Oxford University Conservative Association, now renamed OCA. This surprise move follows the hustings controversy of last Trinity, in which it emerged that candidates were encouraged to make racist jokes.

The Association will now be an official branch of the party, losing the independent status it has clung to for over 80 years. The executive committee of the Association said they “recognised the need for change.”

Marius Ostrowski, a Magdalen third year, who describes himself as an ‘ex-Tory’, expressed anger at the decision. “The Conservative Party’s decision to back an institutionally backward and bigoted organisation, such as OUCA has consistently proved itself to be, is a serious blow to the current Tory leadership’s pretences to compassionate Conservatism and open representation of those who share Conservative ideals.”

Ben Lyons, co-chair of Oxford University Labour Club commented, “OUCA 2.0 are the same people who got elected at racist hustings. They are the same people who spoke in debates on reconquering the empire. And they are the same people who are still not allowed at Freshers Fair. This exposes the sham of David Cameron’s ‘progressive Conservative Party’ as it goes out of its way to support a bigoted Bullingdon-lite.”

One disillusioned conservative expressed scepticism the move would force the Association to change, commenting, “It isn’t their name that’s the problem, rather it’s the people involved in OUCA who make the society such a disgrace.” He added, “I’m not sure the bureaucrats at CCHQ realise how tough a challenge they have ahead of themselves.”

Conservative Campaign Headquarters was unavailable for comment.
The decision was passed unanimously by an emergency meeting of approximately thirty members of the Association. Those present were “representative of all shades of political opinion in OCA,” according to Oli Harvey, President-Elect. From now on OCA will be answerable to Conservative Future, the national organisation for young conservatives. All new recruits will have to become members of the Conservative party. President Alexander Elias will be encouraging the present membership to sign up to the party as well.
In response to “complaints of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour”, the University decided to remove the Association’s right to use ‘Oxford University’ in their name. The Conservative Association was also banned from attending this year’s Freshers’ Fair.

Harvey argued that the decision to link to the party was “not a response to the scandal directly”, however admitted that “the sorts of bad publicity we were generating can’t continue.”

When pressed upon the concrete changes the Association would be making, he stated that the executive is “deeply committed to making a serious and intelligent forum for debate”, which will include a focus on campaigning and supporting local candidates. Harvey also revealed that there would be moves towards signing the Association up to the University’s policy on equality. Elias insisted, “It’s all about changing the tone.”

There was initially speculation over whether the club would change its name, but Elias was able to confirm that the party was happy for them to continue using their old name. In addition to this, OCA will maintain a level of autonomy over its constitution, voting procedures and disciplinary procedures. The age-old tradition of weekly Port and Policy will continue to be held at the Oxford Union.

Questions have been raised over whether the change of status for the Association will be anything more than a token gesture.
Michael Rock, national chairman of Conservative Future, when asked whether he was convinced that OCA had changed, pointed out that the members of the Association involved in the hustings controversy were expelled from the party. However he added, “They [OCA] have to raise their standards to what we expect at CF.”

Others are yet to be convinced of the substance behind the changes OCA has outlined this week. David Barclay, JCR President of Worcester, pointed out that the association would require “close scrutiny to ensure that a return to the shame of the port-swilling pompousness of OUCA is never again allowed a place in Oxford’s public life.” He added, “As Obama infamously warned us just a year ago, you can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.”

Alex Bulfin, ex-JCR President of University College commented, “Anyone who thinks that the rotten elements of OUCA will simply melt away into the night alongside its acronym needs to think again.”

Cherwell has been informed that a reform group of Oxford conservatives, already dubbed OUCF by the right-wing blogosphere, were in discussions with the party with the intention of establishing an Oxford University branch of Conservative Future.

The group had approached the University with the intention of formally establishing an alternative option for conservative students. A spokesperson from the University said, “We can confirm that an alternative Conservative group has contacted the Proctors seeking registration.”

Michael Rock confirmed that he had been in discussions with several alternative parties, but denied that relationships with other groups had progressed further than conversations. He said, “I don’t think there’s any reason to have two separate conservative groups in Oxford.”

Harvey echoed this sentiment, stressing that OCA would be “the only officially recognised conservative association in Oxford.” Ostrowski disagreed, “The Party’s refusal to seek a more suitable mouthpiece for Oxford Conservatism risks alienating its supporters in the current student body, and only fuels dissatisfaction with the state of UK politics in the younger population as a whole.”Members of the reform group are refusing to disclose details of their intentions or their current relationship with the party.

Another student conservative commented, “I am surprised that the party has decided to endorse the Association, especially after so many recent controversies and in the run-up to the election. I have been campaigning for change and reform for years and I truly hope this will bring the change the Association so needs.”

Stefan Baskerville, OUSU President added, “I think it will be a positive development for Oxford when there is a Conservative Association which will facilitate debate among conservative students, but is an association

which does not and won’t tolerate bullying and racist behaviour.”

Students at St Peter’s College are facing upheaval at the start of term following problems with building work.

Renovation work on a staircase housing twelve students, many of whom are finalists, has been pushed back four weeks after builders discovered asbestos inside the structure.

Completion of the work is also being delayed by planning permission problems with the council, due to the listed status of the building.The Rowcroft Building, which overlooks the college’s LintonQuad, is a Grade II listed building that was built in 1928. The improvements, when completed, will add an ensuite shower and toilet to each room, and a kitchen to each floor.

The affected students have to find alternative accommodation as their rooms won’t be ready until at least 3rd week of Michaelmas term. The college has offered £200 and bus fares to students who are able to find their own accommodation, whilst some are being housed in the college’s accommodation.

OUSU Rents and Accommodation officer Jamie Susskind said “OUSU is here to speak up for any student who feels they have been treated insensitively or unfairly, and we are prepared to take action on a case-by-case basis. I have not yet received any calls from St. Peter’s regarding this specific issue, which is the unhappy result of deeply unfortunate circumstances.

“Authorities at St. Peter’s must take action to sort this out immediately, and if there is any evidence that they are not doing so, OUSU will put pressure on the college to make sure it meets its responsibilities. With regard to individual cases, I will do all I can to help and support those who request assistance. I do hope that this problem goes away as rapidly as it should, so that students at St. Peter’s can resume their normal accommodation.”

Students expressed sympathy for the displaced finalists. Clare Bucknell, Magdalen third year said, “I would be really angry if this happened to me.”
The college authorities were not available for comment.

Controversy has erupted at the Oxford Union over the decision by members of staff to implement a costly security project without the knowledge of the society’s President or the authorisation of Standing Committee.

The committee gave their approval to the principle of a new security system being installed in response to a series of incidents.

However, at the end of Trinity Term, a special adjournment motion was levelled to prevent the implementation of a standing committee decision until it had been debated by the chamber this term.

During the Summer Vacation, staff at the Oxford Union hired contractors and began work on the security system, which would require new membership cards to gain access to the buildings during open hours.

The Senior Treasurer, Mr. Stephen Dixon, admitted that it was he who had originally set plans in motion by consulting with the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Trust (OLDUT), the charitable association of old members which owns the Union Buildings and funds modifications.

He had advised the Bursar, Ms. Lindsey Warne, who is also employed by the society, that such a system should be implemented, and the work began without the knowledge of members when the President, James Dray, was away from Oxford. On his return to Oxford the President requested that it be immediately halted.

“I was informed that the Bursar had been advised by the Senior Treasurer, after consultation with fellow trustees, that the gates should be installed. In light of the Special Adjournment Motion (SAM) submitted on 25 June 2009 I have instructed the Bursar to immediately cease installation,” he said in a statement to the members.

Some members were angered by the unauthorised installation, which they felt to be against the democratic principles of the society, including Daniel Johnson, who had brought forward the special adjournment motion.
“The ultimate power [of the society] lies with the members via termly elections and the chamber. [The Bursar] has shown that she does not have the least respect for that.

“She was present in the meeting of Standing Committee where you announced the SAM and explained its impact, and yet never raised it with you,” he said in a letter to the President, in which he called for an investigation.
“Quite simply, we can have no faith in her ability to partake in the administration of the Society.”

The Senior Treasurer emphasised his commitment to the members of the society, but conceded that he had advised the work to go ahead before being put to the membership.

“I agreed that the system would not be activated until after the SAM had been resolved, such that members would continue to have free access to the premises exactly as in the past until after the members had voted. If anyone is to be held responsible then I accept such responsibility, but will strongly defend my decision,” he said in a statement.

However, many members of the Standing Committee were angered by the actions of the Bursar and the Senior Treasurer, especially as the President had not been consulted.

“It surprises me that charitable money was sunk into a project that might not have been used,” said Aled Richards-Jones, Chairman of Consultative Committee, in Monday’s meeting. Standing Committee voted that the work had been in breach of the SAM, and therefore had contravened the rules of the society.

The Bursar conceded that informing the President of the implementation of the system had “slipped her mind”, and made no further comment.
The Union rule book makes no clear reference to the position of staff in such a situation.

One member commented, “Union insiders were openly questioning whether the Bursar’s actions could lead to further consequences and whether this, coming at the end of a string of similar acts, might be the final straw.
“It is unclear at this time whether Standing Committee has the right to dismiss the bursar.”

However, The Senior Treasurer rejected any such notion. “Any attempt to remove the Bursar over this matter will result in an external tribunal at which I will strongly support the Bursar who has acted in the interests of the Union throughout.”

James Dray agreed that there had been controversy over the staff’s actions. “Over the past five days a number of allegations have been levelled against various members of staff with regards to the installation of a security system at the St Michaels Street entrance of the Oxford Union.

At a meeting yesterday, standing committee agreed that a special adjournment motion had been breached.

Oxford City Council is launching a new voluntary landlord accreditation scheme, intended to raise the quality of rented accommodation. It is hoped this will help potential tenants to identify landlords and agents who are dedicated to providing a good standard of housing and service.

The Council’s City Executive Board approved the principal of the scheme and is currently in consultation with landlords, letting agents and tenant groups to outline the details of its implementation. The accreditation will act as a “stamp of approval” and allow the Council, as well as organisations such as OUSU, to share information on landlords who have agreed to meet the obligations of the voluntary certification. 

Labour Councillor Ed Turner, Board Member for Strategic Housing, said of the scheme: “I think students will welcome being given information on which landlords have signed up to our code of best practice.  We are determined to raise standards in privately rented housing.”

The plan sets out minimum standards of safety, contractual and service delivery that tenants can expect landlords to meet when initially renting the property, as well as throughout their lease. In addition, landlords would attend a compulsory training day. Safety certificates would need to be provided for all properties in their care.

The council enter into further discussions with landlords and letting agents in October, primarily through questionnaires. A Landlords’ Forum will also be held later in the month and the scheme may be modified to reflect any further issues raised.

Over 25 per cent of the general housing stock in the city is composed of rented accommodation. A large portion of the accommodation is taken up by students living out.

Stefan Baskerville, OUSU President, said: “Students often pay huge rents for properties which have problems with mould, security or disrepair. We’ve had several meetings over the summer with the city council about the accreditation scheme, and we’ll be helping them launch it in the new year. The scheme will help to clamp down on dodgy landlords and improve the quality of housing which students rent in the private sector.”

Not everyone believes it will clamp down on inefficient or dishonest landlords. Many Liberal Democrats have called it a “toothless” version of a proposal put forward by their party in February 2008.

Steve Goddard, a Lib Dem parliamentary campaigner for Oxford East, called it “a limp-wristed response from an administration that hasn’t grasped the severity of the problem. This incident sends a clear message: the Lib Dems are good for tenants, Labour are good for dodgy landlords.”

The Lib Dems’ proposal would have lowered the number of occupants required to be living within a house before Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) licensing was required. This would have meant many smaller rented accommodations would have had to be brought up to the same standards as larger ones before being licensed.

The proposal was intended to provide a safeguard against landlords who would purposefully lower occupant numbers in order to avoid the licensing process. One example of such an occurrence was cited in the original proposal application, where a fifth occupant had been requested to vacate a property in Harefields by the landlord, allegedly to avoid the need to licence the property as an HMO.

The proposal met with heavy resistance from landlords and agents, however, who claimed that the costly HMO licensing would hit those who genuinely strived to meet the criteria far harder than the dishonest ones.

Elizabeth Brogan, Senior Policy Officer for the National Landlords Association, was quoted at the time as saying: “The irresponsible [landlords] will continue to get away with overcrowding their houses, maximising their income and failing to comply with safety standards.”

Labour deny any connection between the two schemes, citing the record number of successful prosecutions against landlords who failed to meet national standards as proof of its dedication to tackling with dishonesty in letting property.

Turner said of the accusation: “We fully intend to progress both landlord accreditation and licensing of houses in multiple occupation to raise standards; the Lib Dems only proposed one tool. I think students will welcome being given information on which landlords have signed up to our code of best practice. ”
Turner challenged the Liberal Democrats to provide some consistency in their message, adding, “In Parliament, Sarah Teather MP, as Lib Dem housing spokesperson, said there was a “danger of over-regulation” of privately rented housing, so perhaps Oxford’s Lib Dems could try getting their own side on board first.”

Oxford residents gathered last week to call for a halt to the rise of “student ghettos” in the city.

Several residents’ associations from across Oxford met at All Saints Church in Headington, where together they called on the Universities, the city and county councils and Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust to join together to fight the problem of “studentification”.

Residents complained that students are noisy, host loud parties, throw up on the street and even occasionally have sex on the bonnets of cars. Stephanie Jenkins of the Central North Headington Residents’ Association claims the late night noise caused by students “destroys people’s sanity”.

Students were further criticised for failing to maintain cleanliness of their surroundings. Jenkins said, “The heaps of student rubbish everywhere are the one thing that depresses everyone, even if they don’t live near students.” Parking also poses a serious problem to residents as students park on residential streets and fail to move their cars for weeks on end.

Elizabeth Mills, chairman elect of the Divinity Road Area Residents’ Association, said many long-term residents in East Oxford feel they are living in “studentified ghettos”, where they are a small minority. Mills claims only eight houses on Divinity Road are occupied by full-term residents.

In response to residents’ complaints about “studentification”, Dr Anne Gwinnett, Director of Corporate Affairs at Oxford Brookes University, who also chairs residents’ meetings held in the Headington area said, “Oxford Brookes is aware that some residents have a number of concerns linked to the impact of students in the community and is keen to work with those residents to clarify issues.” She said Brookes wants to “ensure our students make a positive contribution to their communities.” Oxford City Council and Oxford University have not taken the opportunity to comment.

Eorann Lean, OUSU VP for Charities and Community, said, “The solution to ‘studentification’ is to not think of it like that. It’s important that students are integrated into the community and treated as residents of Oxford, with the same responsibilities to put their bins out on time and warn neighbours about parties beforehand rather than a separate group… There are some bad neighbours that happen to be students, but there are also bad neighbours who aren’t.” She added, “The most effective way of improving relations is simply to get to know your neighbours.”

Oxford students living in the local community are often detached from the local life around them. One Oxford student living in the Cowley area admitted, “We don’t know our neighbours and have nothing to do with the local community.” However, some students volunteer for local schools and charities, such as Jacari.

Jake Leeper, a student living in Jericho, said, “I think it’s a shame that it’s often only the bad aspects of student behaviour that get recognised. There are already hundreds of students who volunteer in Oxford and who realise that they’re not just University students but are part of an Oxford community instead. Their volunteering helps to create a positive view of Oxford students and I think that it’s important that community volunteering continues to grow so that Oxford’s residents can see that students care about the city that they live in.”

Many residents consider student exploitation by landlords a contributing factor to making areas of Oxford appear run-down. Councillor David Williams claims some property owners are “only interested in packing in as many as possible and doing as few repairs as they must.”

Most of the residents’ complaints were directed towards Brookes students. There are fewer Oxford students living in rented accommodation in the area and many Oxford students living out are housed in accommodation owned by colleges, meaning local residents have a point of contact in case of disturbances.

Residents are calling on Brookes to reduce the number of students living in privately owned properties and to build new facilities further outside of the city centre. Some suggest Brookes should employ night-time wardens in order to control anti-social behaviour and discourage students from bringing cars to Oxford.

Cllr Williams argues the Universities should “help disperse the student population more evenly across the City” and urges students and locals alike to “work together to avoid a Town and Gown divide.”

The residents’ meeting followed the rejection of Brooks’ plans to expand and modernise their Gipsy Lane Campus.

The scheme was halted when Oxford City councillors voted 20 – 13 against the £150 million redevelopment of the site, despite planning officers giving the scheme the go-ahead for approval. The rejection was a surprise victory for local residents.

Mills said the expansion plans went against the “interests of the local community” and added that Brookes has been “riding roughshod over concerns of local residents for years.”

Cllr Williams, himself a graduate of Brookes University, was pleased the redevelopment was thrown out, claiming the new building would have been “massive and overbearing”. He said Brookes needs a building “that has a ‘wow’ factor, something to be proud of. Architecture speaks volumes about what goes on inside…what is needed is something that says…This is a first class world renowned University.”

Brookes were disappointed that the plans fell through. Paul Large, Acting Registrar of Oxford Brookes University, said Brookes had “listened to residents’ complaints carefully” since planning began in 2005 and that following the decision made by city councillors, Brookes would now consider its “next course of action.” Oxford Brookes is trying to replace old buildings from the 50s and 60s and consider it “very important that our facilities match our reputation as a leading university.”

Professor Andrew Hamilton has taken up his post as the 296th vice-chancellor of the University and laid out some important changes he wants to make in Oxford.

Hamilton particularly wants to improve financial aid with more generous bursaries and scholarships for students applying to Oxford. As the government reduces spending on higher education, the new vice-chancellor believes universities must find other ways of improving funds, including more co-operation with industry and raising tuition fees.

Hamilton has spent the last 28 years working in ivy-league institutions in the United States, including both Princeton and Yale, and has a very impressive track record for fundraising.

He wants Oxford alumni to give more to “ensure future students will have the same opportunities that they had when they were here.”

In the face of the current economic climate, and given funding cuts proposed by the government Hamilton has admitted, “financial sustainability is, without any question, going to be one of the biggest challenges for us.”

OUSU have welcomed Hamilton’s promises saying, “Higher donations will help fund new facilities and Oxford’s exceptional quality of teaching while also making the university’s financial position more stable.”

Jonny Medland, Access and Academic Affairs Officer for OUSU, agrees that the priority should be attracting the best and the brightest regardless of their background. However, he does not see tuition fees as the way forwards. “Raising fees will undermine all the outreach work which Oxford does at the moment, and contribute to the fear of debt which we know discourages young people from applying to university,” he said.

Stefan Baskerville, President of OUSU, supported Medland’s comments. “Fees are not the way forward. The students of Oxford have voted for a fairer and more sustainable system to fund higher education: a graduate contribution scheme. We challenge the University in the coming months to think creatively about the options available for funding higher education, and we look forward to engaging them constructively in that debate.”

Alumni do already donate significant amounts to the University. One student who participated in college alumni phone trawls seeking donations claims former students are “generally positive” and “happy to give”. However, he agreed that the system could be improved.

One St. Hilda’s student said, “I have enjoyed my time at Oxford and as soon as I have enough money I will be happy to give to help future students.”
Another student admitted, “I would only give money if Oxford had helped me become successful. If I struggle to find a good job after graduating, I will definitely have different priorities.”

Two male students, separated while kissing in an Oxford nightclub on Friday night, have expressed anger at what they felt was “homophobic” treatment by an Oxford nightclub bouncer. The club manager is insisting that the incident was not an issue of homophobia and stated that the club does not discriminate against anyone.

In a letter of complaint to the club, one of the students gave his account of what he viewed as “a shocking, and indeed traumatic experience,” which began when he was “pushed away” from his boyfriend by a bouncer while kissing him. Upon questioning the bouncer, the students were asked to discuss the matter in a stairwell.

“I asked again what I was doing wrong,” the student said. “He told me that ‘four girls’ had complained about me kissing my boyfriend and that this was something I should ‘do in private, not in public’. At this point I was so outraged that I got quite upset. I asked for his name, which is a piece of information we are surely entitled to, and he refused to give it to me. I felt entirely helpless.”

The club does not have a reputation for objecting to kissing on its premises. One regular visitor said, “There are always people getting off with each other and I’ve never heard of the management intervening before.” Last year, Kukui was criticised for hosting naked KY jelly wrestling event.

One friend of the pair who witnessed the incident said she had seen the bouncer separating the kissing couple and also claims to have heard the bouncer’s “not in public” comment. The student, also from St Hilda’s, expressed outrage at the incident adding, “In a place like Oxford, you expect better.”

Another witness to the proceedings said she had seen the boys being pushed apart and was “very shocked”. She said there was no way a complaint could have been made about the boys in the time they had been kissing, because it was only a “matter of seconds” before the bouncer split them up. She considered the way the couple were being treated “outrageously”.

The angered students then went to find the duty manager. In his letter of complaint, the student went on to describe how the manager told him to “go back into the club ‘to enjoy myself’. Feeling aggrieved and ignored, I told him I would go and get the bouncer for him.” However, the student claims the bouncer refused to accompany him.

Mr Steven Tingle, the General Manager of Kukui insisted, “This club does not discriminate against anyone.” He agreed the pair had approached the manager, but stated that they were reassured they were not being removed from the club. Mr Tingle said it was only when they subsequently became aggressive to staff members that they were removed.

Mr Tingle stated, “These two gentlemen were not asked to leave the club for kissing. They approached the manager on the front door and made allegations that they were being ejected from the club. The manager reiterated to them on several occasions that they were not being ejected from the club and [they] were told to go back inside the club and enjoy their evening.” He claimed that the students “went back inside but refused to calm down and were subsequently ejected for their aggressive behaviour towards the staff.”

After leaving the club, the angry students reported the incident to some police officers. One of the police officers fetched the bouncer and brought him to talk through their grievances. In his letter of complaint, the student claims, “At one point in the conversation I asked the bouncer ‘would you have done this to a heterosexual couple?’ to which he bluntly responded ‘No’.” This claim has been supported by another witness.
The incident was discussed at a meeting between OUSU representatives, JCR presidents and the Kukui management on Monday.

Jesse Harber, JCR President of St Hilda’s College commented, “Kukui, OUSU and I had a very constructive meeting. It’s clear to me that this is not an issue of homophobia on the part of Kukui and that Kukui is committed to providing a good time to the students of this university. I am also looking forward to working on this formal procedure for students to bring their grievances to clubs.”

A joint statement issued after the meeting described the incident as “regrettable”. It said that Kukui welcomed “all students regardless of sexual orientation” adding that the club has “a single standard for what is considered appropriate expressions of affection.”
However, they added that they “could have made it clearer how the students could have brought their grievances forward.”

The statement also emphasised that Kukui will be reiterating to its staff the existing policies on non-discrimination and acceptable behaviour within the club.

Oxford students face the highest weekly living costs in the UK, a study has found.

The Student Living Index, released annually by NatWest, found that an average week in the city costs students £238.38. Birmingham offers the lowest weekly living cost, at £171.14.

The cities were ranked according to calculations made using average local weekly student expenditure and average local weekly income for working students. This suggests that the figure could be skewed by the fact that Oxford students do not get jobs during term time, unlike students from Oxford Brookes. Students at the city’s main university may therefore face higher living costs than this figure suggests.

While London students receive a larger maintenance loan than students in the rest of the country, which can amount to up to £4,988 per year, Oxford students receive no such subsidy, despite enduring the highest living costs.

Owen Evans, St Anne’s JCR President, expressed concern at the findings, “Worryingly, the data published by Natwest indicates that the average annual cost of living in Oxford is £5,721.12, which renders the full maintenance student loan of £3,564 pitifully insufficient.

“I feel that this problem is of greatest concern for the silent majority of Oxford students, who fall into the bracket between those who qualify for a grant and Oxford Opportunity Bursary, and those whose parents can fully support them through university. It is these students who compile the most debt and feel the squeeze of battels, fees and living costs greatest. This issue urgently needs addressing, especially with talk of a hike in the cost of tuition fees.”

Fortunately, for those in receipt of the Oxford Opportunity Bursary, the apparently high cost of living in Oxford isn’t always felt. Natalie Theodoulou, a second year chemist, feels that she is adequately covered by it, “Compared to other places in the country Oxford is very expensive, however, I am fortunate enough for the university to provide me with a bursary which makes it a lot easier!”

There are even some who do not receive a Bursary who feel that Oxford is not as expensive as the study claims. “I’ve never really thought of it as being too expensive,” said Paddy Unwin, a second year mathematician. “I get by okay.”

There is, however, by no means a consensus on this issue. Olly Richards, a historian from St. Anne’s commented, “Oxford is certainly a very expensive place to live, and to live within a reasonable budget requires substantial concessions to be made. If a student were forced to live out they would either have to live in the prohibitively expensive Jericho or the inconvenient Cowley.

“An extension of the student loan [as for London students] should be considered, especially as this is a very low risk option as Oxford has one of the highest post-university employment rates in the country.”

Last week, the University’s new Vice-Chancellor Professor Andrew Hamilton called for higher bursaries to prevent poorer students being priced out of university.
“We must take great care not to fail the students [by] allowing a degradation of the quality of education that is provided by the great universities of Great Britain,” he said. “But also not to fail them in the commitment that the great universities must make to any student who has the academic credentials, the academic potential to attend. The commitment that we must make to them [is] that they will attend Oxford irrespective of their economic circumstances.

“Oxford has a very generous bursary offer, but obviously as this debate unfolds we’ve got to reinforce that and quite frankly improve it.”