Last week Cherwell broke the story of an LMH fresher who faked 10 A-Levels and fabricated a personal statement to gain a place at Oxford. Now it has emerged that the student was also offering tutoring for Oxbridge applications.

Around the same time that he begun studying at Oxford,the student became involved at a high level with the website “Sucedo”, a company which sells coaching, tuition and advice to prospective Oxbridge applicants.

The Sucedo website boasts that the fresher is the only candidate who scored 100% on the TSA [Thinking Skills Assesment], a claim that the LMH Admissions Office have refused to verify. Sucedo offers to arrange an question and answer session with the student about the TSA, which it promises will be an “informal session” where “your questions decide the content”.

Sucedo is a relatively new company, set up in June 2009 by Alexander James McPherson. The Sucedo website claims that its users will benefit from being taught by past or present Oxbridge students.

But the current Company Director, 24 year old James Meller, is not an Oxbridge alumni, but a graduate from Manchester University.

The site charges £200 for a mock interview, £320 for a “Skills” package, and £950 for the fully blown “Meet and Greet” experience, where applicants would be accompanied to their interviews by Sucedo representatives. Elsewhere, Sucedo offers “hundreds of USD” to anyone who refers Cambridge or Oxford applicants to them for coaching.
Sucedo told the Telegraph in November 2009 that it had seen a “massive upsurge” in demand for help to pass admissions tests, particularly from state school students.

Owen John, the LMH JCR Access & Academic Affairs Officer, commented that companies like Sucedo are “a big concern to the College. It is not in their interest to have students who have had the best preparation, but are not necessarily the best. The one thing [Sucedo and other companies] cannot give you is the raw ability that Oxford is looking for. The case of [LMH student] shows that just having the right techniques for interviews and admissions test can’t get you through the degree.” Fresher’s school Headmistress described his academic record as “strong but not outstanding”.

The Sucedo website warns, “We’re here to see you succeed in the long-term…We’re not here to give you shortcuts that will make life difficult further down the line.”
A spokesperson from Oxford said, “Oxford has one of the most rigorous selection processes for students applying for undergraduate study in the country. All tests must satisfy a range of criteria before they are used for selecting students.”

Oxford takes an uncompromising stance towards companies like Sucedo, “The University does not endorse any commercial coaching activities related to the selection process – we are always keen to let candidates know that there is free advice and guidance available direct from the University, with sample aptitude tests available to download and practise.”

Owen commented, “It’s a sad fact that when someone like [the first year student] is prepared to lie himself into a University place he doesn’t deserve, he will sometimes get away with it. Had he hoped that he’d get through an entire degree course at LMH without having met the entry requirements then he was quickly proved wrong.”

On the penultimate day of Michaelmas term, the pupil was asked to see the Dean, who told him to leave LMH with immediate effect while the evidence against him was reviewed. So far this term, he has not returned.

Oxford University Officer Training Corps (OUOTC) have been accused of insensitivity, following their ‘Officers and Zulus’ themed fancy dress party last week.

The themed party concluded a series of training sessions focusing on the military tactics utilised by the British in the 1879 Zulu Wars and was an extension of the ‘military history’ syllabus due to run throughout Hilary term.

The invitation announcing the event stated that “the evening’s aim is to celebrate the martial prowess of both sides in the campaign”.

Yet the event has sparked much controversy within the Oxford University community.

In an email before the party, OUOTC advised attendees, “In order to avoid sullying our good name, please refrain from using body paints (you know what this means in practice).”

One member of Lincoln College was shocked by the party. She stated, “It strikes me that there may be something a teensy bit offensive about a group of future British Army officers (who all happen to be white, by the way) dressing up as a group of colonial invaders and the ‘savages’ they defeated.

“This sort of thing horribly trivialises not only another nation’s culture, but also the oppression and subjugation of that nation as a result of British colonialism.”

Others labelled the theme as ‘lacking in taste’, comparing it to Prince Harry’s infamously ill-chosen Nazi costume. A second-year English student argued, “For cadets to dress up as colonial soldiers, in order to attend a party- it’s just really disrespectful. Of course that’s going to cause offence.”

Attendees defended the party, arguing that it was thematically related to the day’s educational activities.

Patrick Page, a member of OUOTC and student at St Benet’s Hall commented: “I don’t think there is any question that the OTC were celebrating some sort of colonial victory. If it were, I certainly would not have gone.”

Captain Christian San Jose of OUOTC added that the group were interested in examining the Zulu wars from an “Entirely military viewpoint as opposed to political or moral, we were looking at the military tactics used by the British infantry.”

He conceded, “We’re not so naive that we are not aware that there is potential for offence and we made note to cadets that they should exercise restraint and that fancy dress should not emphasise any political undertones.”

“People get offended about all sorts of things”, he added. “There wouldn’t be any point in not holding the evening in case we offended people. I certainly didn’t hear any complaints about it from within the OTC.”

He suggested the possibility that those criticising the party may simply be trying “to get at the OTC” but stated that complaints probably came from people who “weren’t at the evening and had no understanding of what our aims were.” 

A motion has been passed by St John’s College JCR and MCR in favour of adopting a tortoise as a College pet.

Undergraduates are now awaiting final approval from college authorities before purchasing the animal which will inhabit the College gardens and ‘boost the collegiate spirit’.

Commenting on the new addition to St John’s, JCR President Martha MacKenzie commented, “Everyone was very enthusiastic about getting a pet… The MCR went on to pass a motion in favour of a tortoise so it was brought back this week and there was much excitement. The motion passed without any objections and with lots of enthusiasm!”
 
St John’s student Rachel Dedmen stated “We chose a tortoise because they are relatively low maintenance, and could live quite happily in our gardens, with dedicated Tortoise Reps to guard their welfare.”

She added, “The tortoise will only enrich the St John’s experience, and quickly be a source of College pride – taking part in the annual Corpus Tortoise Race – and becoming a figure in St John’s history, (it will outlive all of us).”

Jeremy Evans, also a student at St John’s College stated “I’m fairly neutral to the tortoise”, but commented “The extent to which it would alter my St John’s experience would probably be going to see it once or twice.”

Though funds are yet to be finalised it has been agreed that the start-up expenses, as well as an annual running cost, will be shared between the JCR and the MCR.

It is hoped that the tortoise will help to create closer ties between the JCR and the MCR. 

Funding cuts announced on Monday will slash university budgets by £518m.

The first university budget cuts since Labour came to power in 1997 will see £215m cut from teaching budgets, a real terms cut 1.6%. Capital spending will be reduced by 15% for the academic year 2010/11.

These cuts come at a time when applications for Universities were ‘surging’, stoking fears of vast cuts in student numbers and a hiking of fees in order to balance their budgets.

Already universities are experiencing an unprecedented rise in applications, with some reporting increases of up to 40%. Steve Smith, president of the Vice-Chancellor’s group Universities UK, estimates that some 200,000 people could lose out on place.

Fears about place cuts have led the President of the National Union of Student (NUS) to condemn the announcement.

Wes Streeting argues that the cuts will cause “irreversible damage” to higher education. He stated, “Singling out universities for cuts of this kind seems to me to be an extraordinary act of self harm by the government”.

The vast cuts have also led to fears amongst students about the quality of teaching and fees.

Oxford students have widely condemned the government’s decision to cut the Universities budget with such ferocity.

“The scale of these cuts is bound to have an effect on teaching. Larger tutorials, larger classes and less of them will surely be the result”, Kate Travers commented. “The plans will only serve to blunt nation’s competitive edge in the labour market.”

Camilla Jones, a finalist, commented “access is surely going to be hit by this decision. All the work that Oxford and other universities have done to improve social mobility will be undone. Fees will have to rise considerably to meet this shortfall and will put the poorest off applying.”

With universities receiving their individual budgets in the coming weeks, Oxford will have to brace itself for a huge swathe of cuts. The University already has to provide around 50% of the teaching costs for its students.

The announcement of cuts can only add to fears that there will be a rise in student fees. With student debt already at record highs in the UK, a rise in fees could worsen the situation.

It seems now, almost inevitable that fees will have to rise, and by a large extent. This is especially true if the government want half of the population to meet to attend university, whilst considerably cutting the HE Budget.

This will not only hit price of the education available, it is also bound to negatively impact on subsidies, with many Oxford Colleges heavily subsidising food, rent and accommodation amongst other things.

There are worries that wealthier colleges will be better able to subsidise their students in while students at poorer colleges will be hit harder by the government’s decision.

Last month Cherwell reported on the University’s decision to ban the popular music-sharing website Spotify across college networks.

The company behind Spotify have since said that they will be making efforts to have the ban on the music sharing website lifted.

Spotify commented on the ban, saying, “It’s sad to think of our student friends at Oxford University unable to listen to Spotify whilst on campus.”

“We’ve spoken with the university and are currently discussing how we might reconnect the students with their music. We’re keeping everything crossed!”

The website was initially blocked because of concerns about the amount of bandwidth it took up. Spotify reacted quickly to the news, contacting Dr. Stuart Lee, Director of OUCS, to request a meeting last Monday.

Dr. Lee said that he hoped the situation could be resolved. “If we could do something as we did with Skype then that would be in everyone’s best interest, it would be win-win.”

He maintained that, “…the reason we try to restrict peer-to-peer is that it really does swallow up bandwidth.”

The issue has sparked debate at other universities. A Cambridge College has moved quickly to reassure students that the service will not be banned.

A spokesperson for Newham College said, “Why would anyone ban it? Our policy is to provide an internet service that is closest to students have at home. Of course we monitor for abuse, but we have no plans to ban programs like Spotify which are harmless.”

Oxford University’s ban of Spotify has attracted international interest, with the news being published on SkyNews and The Washington Post.

Oxford City Council has still not reviewed the junction outside the Kings Arms, despite the death of a student there in 2007.

As a result, a motion for road safety outside the Kings Arms has been passed without opposition at this week’s OUSU council. It proposed an urgent review into the safety of the junction, and suggested a pedestrian crossing be installed, as well as road markings for cyclists.

There is currently an online petition for the improvement of road user safety outside the Kings Arms, which has been signed by more than 680 people.
The petition states that “Hundreds of road users every day have to double-guess each others actions and this can be fatal once again if someone is in a rush. The council must drop its excuses and act now.”

The petition proposes an immediate installation of cyclist and pedestrian lights on the junction, as well as a new configuration of traffic lights sequence, which will ensure safety and peace of mind for all road users.

The OUSU motion suggested that the petition should be promoted through local media in order to elicit action from the Council.

It is also stated in the petition that the council spent time discussing with the university representatives ways of improving safety at the junction and decided on creating a space similar to the one in front of the Clarendon Centre, which would be incorporated into a major re-design of Broad Street.

Leah Jesnick, a first-year at St Hugh’s student commented: “My friend almost got run over on that junction. It is very irresponsible of the Council to not have done anything about it.”

Another student said “I always jump the lights in that junction. I know that it is dangerous but otherwise you have to wait for ages to be able to cross.”
Oxford City Council released a statement which read, “Work to look at possible alterations for this junction is ongoing and the council is planning to go to a stakeholder consultation soon on an outline scheme, which includes removing traffic signals.”

“The council has had to take into account Oxford University’s plans for major alterations to the Bodleian New Library on the north side of Broad Street to see how their plans will interact with ours.”

There are also no provisions at the junction to assist people with disabilities.

On Saturday, Oxford played host to one of the 10:23 “mass overdose” protests which took place across the country.

Around 35 people attended the protest in Oxford which was organised to put pressure on Boots pharmacy to withdraw homeopathic products from their shelves. Nationwide, more than 400 people took part in various protests.

At 10:23 exactly, participants “overdosed” by consuming entire bottles of homeopathic medicines. They stated beforehand that they would come to no harm because homeopathic tinctures are simply water, while the pills are just sugar.

A spokesman from the campaign, Martin Robbins, confirmed on February 1st that nobody had been harmed.

He stated that the only damage had been “to their wallets – using homeopathy is a very expensive way of buying sugar.”

Rosie Olliver, a pupil at Oxford High School, organised the Oxford campaign. She commented, “We all hope that Boots will withdraw homeopathy from their shelves, or put up signs saying this is a placebo treatment.”

She continued, “They know it doesn’t work, we know it doesn’t work, they need to stop lying to their customers.”

Boots have been targeted due to the fact that they have admitted that they sell homeopathic remedies because they sell, rather than because they believe they work.

Paul Bennett, professional standards director for Boots, stated to a committee of MPs last Novemeber, “I have no evidence to suggest they are efficacious. It is about consumer choice for us and a large number of our customers believe they are efficacious.”

In an open letter to Boots, the 10:23 campaign asks the store to “do the right thing, and remove this bogus therapy from your shelves.”

As the campaign was aimed at Boots, all the protestors took Boots own-brand homeopathic remedies.

Paula Ross, chief executive of the Society of Homeopaths, took a very negative view of the protest, commenting, “This is an ill-advised publicity stunt in very poor taste, which does nothing to advance the scientific debate about how homeopathy actually works.”