Oxford has yet again fallen short of the Government’s targets on state school student intake.

In 2008, just 55.4% of the university’s incoming students were state school graduates, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency. The government’s benchmark is set at 75.3%.

Cambridge continues to enroll more state educated pupils than Oxford. However, while Oxford saw a 2% increase in successful state school applicants, Cambridge experienced of a slight decline in the percentage admitted, compared to last year.

Both institutions have contested the validity of the benchmarks, with Oxford officials calling them “unrealistic.”

Criticism has focused around the methodology employed since 2004 to calculate targets, which does not distinguish between A-levels and other qualifications when calculating student’s fitness for admission to Oxbridge.

The system allocates points to students that can be accumulated in a variety of ways. These range from sitting A-levels, to completing vocational courses, to gaining a certificate in Horse Knowledge & Care from the British Horse Society.

Oxford officials say this system artificially inflates the number of applicants deemed qualified for admission. “Admission to Oxford University is based on performance in academic subjects at full A-level that relate to our degree courses,” said a University spokesperson. “Those who actually gain three As at full A-level are numerically a smaller group than those who gain the tariff point equivalent.”

Paul Dwyer, OUSU Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs), said he was glad the government had set the targets.

“I think that it is commendable that the government has recognised the problem of under-representation of students educated at state schools at university, although feel that they have more work yet to do.”

However, he echoed the University’s claim that state schools could not provide enough qualified candidates.

“What the government target statistics do not take into account are the number of schools who are actually able to provide candidates who will get 3 As at A Level.

“There are simply too many schools in the country who cannot provide the support and teaching resources for students to achieve this aim, which means that meeting the statistic is made a much harder task for the University.”

The failure to meet benchmarks places Oxbridge under renewed pressure to widen access, with many students saying they felt more could be done. Jon Mellon, a PPEist at St Anne’s and a state school graduate said OUSU’s Target Schools scheme, which is backed by the University, was “a step in the right direction.” However, he added that he “didn’t get that much direction” from access schemes, aside from an interview training day that “wasn’t much use.”

Chancellor Lord Patten has consistently defended Oxford’s record on access.
In a speech last year he said, “However hard we try to widen participation at Oxbridge, and I am sure you could say the same at many other universities, there is no chance whatsoever of meeting the socio-economic targets set by agents of government so long as the proportion of students getting A grades in traditional academic A-level subjects at private and maintained schools stays the same. It is as simple as that.”

Patten has also suggested that the government could pay for private schools to give special lessons to talented state school pupils applying to university.

Oxford University Student Union has lost £41,447 in the 2007-08 financial year, suffering its biggest financial loss since 2005.

This information comes at the time when OUSU’s 2009/2010 budget comes under criticism and its company’s projected income for this year has staggeringly decreased by £28,000.

Documents obtained by Cherwell have revealed that OUSU had less than £18,630 net remaining at the end of Trinity 2008, after the financial year 2007-2008 brought a shocking loss of over £41,000.

Criticisms of the budget have been led by Ben Britton, the MCR co-President of St Catherine’s College. “The budget is far less specific than previous years, the numbers don’t add up and OUSU is at serious risk of a shortfall this year, which could bring it dangerously close to having less than zero net funds”, he said.

OUSU predicts that they will end the 2009/2010 year with a profit of only £110.

This will leave the organization far short of the estimated £100,000 target of reserves when registering as a charity later this year. It also puts the organization at a risk of huge financial shortfall, as will be forced to rely on unstable income.

The budget is based on an estimated £80,00 income from Oxford Student Services Limited (OSSL), OUSU’s trading arm. However, the accounts for 2008 show that OSSL only returned £15,109 to OUSU.

Similarly, this year’s projected income of OSSL has recently been dramatically reduced by £28,000, more than one the £19,161 cost of one sabbatical officer.

OUSU President Lewis Iwu has explained the difference in the accounts saying, “Both sets of figures are forecasts. Forecasts by their very nature change.”

OUSU further notes that its budget “is dependent upon earnings from OSSL which too often in the past have not materialised.” Further in the document, the Union emphasizes that it has taken a “conservative approach” in developing the budget.

OUSU is also relying on £91,857 worth of affiliation fees. This figure assumes no further disaffiliation or reaffiliations. With Christ Church, Balliol and Oriel college JCRs voting on whether or not to disaffiliate or reaffiliate just last week, affiliation fees could vary considerably in the next year from what has been budgeted.

One first year PPE student commented, “It’s ridiculous to have a student union that doesn’t seem to stand for anything or do anything useful and yet still see it losing money.”

Criticisms have also been raised about the detail of the budget, which lacks a lot of the detail of former years with much of the text having been directly copied from the previous budget. For example, previous reports detailed the amount of reserves and an invitation for comments, queries and concerns; this year’s did not.

Iwu has stated that he is willing to answer any questions about the specifics of the budget. He also said that several factors will ensure greater OSSL profitability.

He explained, “having a dedicated member of staff who will oversee the qualityof our publications will lead to more revenue being generated by our publications hence reducing the amount of forced discounts that we have had to give out to advertisers due to problems with publications.

“We also plan on exploiting web advertising more which is a lucrative market with little cost. Finally we will see a strategy in place next year to start selling fresher’s fair advertising earlier on in the year. We explained this to the University and they acknowledged these changes are key to getting better performance from OSSL.”

A war of words has erupted between senior officials of the Oxford University Students’ Union (OUSU) over a controversial partnership with another student society.

The row came ahead of a motion that will be considered today at OUSU Council, which if passed would cement the student union’s relationship with The Oxford Hub (OxHub); a student-run organisation focused on the promotion of charitable activity and social enterprise.

The “Memorandum of Understanding” would give OxHub a range of benefits, including advertising space in The Oxford Student, three stalls at the Freshers’ Fair and various other promotional opportunities, all free of charge. In return, the OUSU logo would be placed on OxHub publications.

The terms of the deal have been condemned by members of the OUSU Executive.

Among the critics was Common Room Liaison Officer, Jack Matthews, who claimed the Student Union would be giving up funding and influence for little in return.

“One of the most glaring faults with the memorandum is the inequality between what OUSU gets, and what it is giving away,” he said.

Matthews added that he was also concerned by the future implications of the proposal, which could lead to the Student Union supporting OxHub financially.
“OUSU will be giving all of this away for free, at a time of national financial concern, and when we are one of the poorest student unions in the country.

“We should be supporting students directly – not hiring in others to do it instead.”

There were also concerns that the new link-up could overlap with existing OUSU services. The Student Union already has a charities campaign in Oxford RAG, but although it carries out similar activities to OxHub, it will not be involved in the new plans.

Further doubts were expressed by OUSU Environment and Ethics officer, Daniel Lowe, who admitted he had “strong reservations” that common rooms would be angered by the costs involved.

He said, “In a joint common room meeting two weeks ago at Lincoln College, concerns were expressed about the amount that OUSU spends in its charities portfolio, and to be adding to this expenditure may be unwise.”

Others were keen to defend the proposed partnership however, with OxHub President Jake Leeper eager to stress that the link would see benefits for both parties.

He said, “The aim of this partnership is to formalise our productive relationship and ensure we are making the most efficient use of our resources in providing a service to students and raising the charitable profile at Oxford University.

“OUSU is the political voice on charitable activity, whilst Oxford Hub facilitates charitable activity.”

His thoughts were echoed by Jack Wellby, OUSU Vice-President (Charities and Communities), who said the criticism from his colleagues was completely unwarranted.

“The Oxford Hub is precisely the sort of thing the Student Union should be supporting,” he said. “I know of no student union that makes money from encouraging students to volunteer – this is a service to offer not a revenue stream.

“The argument about lost revenue goes both ways – The Oxford Hub are supporting OUSU in spaces where a commercial logo could be placed as they recognise the benefits of being supported by the Student Union.”

The Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) has been rocked by the allegations of institutional racism, prompting the suspension of two members of the society from the national Conservative party.

The controversy erupted following hustings for the society’s elections this week, with candidates asked to tell the most racist joke they knew and what was their least favourite minority.

In response, one of the candidates answered the question with a joke about a black person hanging in a family tree.

The other said, “What do you say when you see a television moving around in the dark?”, with only the intervention of the Assistant Returning Officer preventing the racist punchline from being uttered.

The episode has sparked universal outrage, with officials from the national Conservative Party moving to suspend the students from the party within hours of them being notified of the incident.

“We take matters of this kind incredibly seriously,” said a Conservative Party spokesman. “People who behave in this disgusting and reprehensible way have no place in the Conservative Party.”

A member of the society’s committee has resigned from OUCA as a result of the controversy.

Anthony Boutall, the president of the association, admitted that the situation has turned into “a bit of a row”. He added, “I don’t want this shit hanging around in my term and on my watch, so we’re going to have a
 DC to sort it out.”

He explained situation saying, “There was a great deal of noise at the OUCA hustings on Sunday. I did not hear a racist joke, but it has come to my attention that something offensive was said.

“A Disciplinary Committee has been called for Saturday and, while I do not have the power to prejudge the decision of the DC, I can give a personal pledge that if these individuals are found guilty, I shall use my powers to their fullest capacity, making it my top priority to ensure that they play no further part in the Association.

“I cannot reiterate strongly enough that OUCA has no place for racism, and abhors and rejects all racial prejudice.”

In light of the controversy, Lewis Iwu, President of the Oxford University Students’ Union, said he would be submitting an emergency motion to OUSU Council today which if passed would prevent OUCA from attending Fresher’s Fair.

“I intend to submit an emergency motion to OUSU Council to make it clear just how disgusted the student community are with these events,” he said.

“Oxford University is the most famous and the most fascinating University in the world. However recent events regarding race have created a moral stain on this University’s reputation. I seriously believe that Oxford needs a very clear and public strategy on how it intends to be not just reactive to events such those that happened at the OUCA husts but proactive.

“I also call on the Oxford Union to consider whether or not OUCA should be able to use their premises, given what has recently occured there.”

The Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) has also canceled a debate they were due to have with OUCA on Monday of 8th week, with a statement issued by the society declaring: “There is no way that we could stand on the same platform with an organisation which advocates racism and bigotry of the most hateful order.”

Asked to comment further, OULC co-Chair Jamie Susskind said he was shocked and appalled by the recent events.

“Anthony Boutall looked me in the eye and told me that OUCA had changed. Clearly he was not telling the truth.”

He added, “Statements of condemnation by the national Conservative Party are not enough. It is time for Baroness Thatcher to resign as Patron of OUCA, for William Hague to renounce his Honorary Presidency, and for David Cameron to disown this shameful organization.”

Michael Howard, the Conservative MP who was to attend OUCA’s termly dinner yesterday has cancelled his visit in the light of the events.

It is not the first time that OUCA has attracted negative headlines. In 2004 the ex-Treasurer of the society, Anatole Pang, was found guilty of bringing OUCA into disrepute after posting “offensive” comments about India in a newsletter, whilst in 2000 four members of the association were expelled from a meeting for making “Nazi-style salutes.”

The latest allegations have met with mixed reaction from the OUCA membership.

One member described the jokes as “tongue in cheek, ironic would be the word for it…More banter than anything else.”

Another member added, “It was loud. The R.O. was getting angry, there 
was loads of yelling…It was a pretty funny situation.”

A number of committee members have stated that the Association’s hustings have always included non-political questions. “It is somewhat of an OUCA tradition to ask two or three slightly outrageous questions” explained the source, “Everyone who’s there expects certain things to go on. It’s all in good spirits.”

“We sometimes get questions in hustings, ‘What sort of animal would you go to bed with?'”, stated committee member, “Unfortunately, it shows how old-fashioned the society is.”

Another added, “It goes up upwards by ranks, then you get asked ‘What sort of position would you like to have sex with an animal?’ Presidential candidates also get quizzed to name all British territories. We really need to reform OUCA before the elections.”

Emmanuel Efunbote, an OUCA member, commented, “This isn’t my first Conservative association, I was a member at Durham and King’s College and we didn’t get things like this.”

However he added, “Neither OUCA nor any other Conservative organisation that I have been part of are racist in my own personal experiences.”

Danny Buck, an OUCA member, stated the association’s need to reform. He said, ” I’m willing to attest to peer pressure and the atmospheres at hust having served in them 3 times. The only way I avoided racism was by silliness and that the current president and president elect said a lot worse things… The hidden corruption is that of old school ties and more vitally masonry. We need a new Tory reform group urgently.”

Oxford has bucked national and county trends by more than doubling its Labour councillors in Thursday’s local elections.

Nine of the city’s sixteen wards are now controlled by Britain’s governing party, as opposed to just four before the elections. Oxford’s City Council, for which elections will be held next year, has long been dominated by Labour.

OULC president Jacob Turner said he felt that the result was a consequence of “a very great effort from the local party including Labour Club members. We’ve been going out, meeting people, and asking them not to vote for us, but just how our councillors can help them. We’ve built up a relationship with residents which is ultimately expressed in voting.”

In central areas of Oxford, Labour advanced at the expense of the Greens. West Central Oxford abandoned its Green councillor to elect Labourite Susanna Pressel, while East Oxford ended its unusual status as an all-Green ward by electing Labour’s Saj Malik.

The Conservatives once again failed to win any council representation in Oxford, receiving less than 10% of the vote in many areas.

The results stand in stark contrast to the pattern on the national level. Across all the wards up for election in this round of voting, Labour lost the majority of its sitting councillors and all three of its councils.

This was reflected more obviously in rural areas of Oxfordshire, where the party received an overall vote share of just 15%, leaving it with no wards left in the county outside Oxford itself. However, its success in the capital means that it has made an overall net gain of one seat on the county council.

Turner said he accepted that national issues were having a negative effect on Labour’s performance in council elections. However, he added that he felt Oxford provided a good example of the party at its best.

“Regardless of the state of the cabinet, or how politicians are being portrayed in the media, our basic principles are correct – we’re the party that cares about the people and what the state can do for the people. As long as we keep this in mind we can keep being very strong in Oxford.”

The Conservative Party benefited most from the swing in rural support towards Labour, and now dominates the county council with 52 of its 74 seats. A weak showing in both rural and urban areas by the Liberal Democrats saw them lose five seats, although they remain the largest opposition group.