Friday 4th July 2025
Blog Page 2078

Review: Oxford University Sinfonietta

0

On Tuesday 1st December the Oxford University Sinfonietta gave their end-of-term concert in the Wesley Memorial Church.

The programme ranged from Mozart and his lesser-known contemporary Wanhal, to Schnittke and John Williams. According to the conductor, James Longstaffe, the choice of repertoire was designed to ‘showcase some of the bright young soloists of Oxford nd hear some Williams that isn’t Star Wars!’

As the respectably-sized audience trickled in, fragments of conversation hinted at the anticipation that almost always precedes OU Sinfonietta concerts. As the repertoire is less-than-familiar to most of the listeners, murmurings of scepticism usually emerge at the idea of an ensemble playing pieces without hummable themes. This concert was no exception, but proved more than able to answer those apprehensions.

The short Mozart overture (Der Schauspieldirektor) that opened the concert was – despite occasional tuning problems – a lively start, and the ensemble was generally well-controlled. Unfortunately the delay in staging arrangements afterwards led to this brief piece feeling slightly isolated, a false start in a programme of much larger works.

However this was soon forgotten in the midst of a magnificent performance of Schnittke’s Concerto Grosso No.1. Violinists Amy Tress and Isla Mundell-Perkins (Oxford University Orchestra leaders past and present) relished the technical demands of this work, and were sensitively supported by Daisy Fancourt on Harpsichord and Prepared Piano.

Wanhal’s Symphony in G Minor followed the interval, and, although probably a weaker point of the evening, was a rare chance to hear some underrated and underperformed music.

After this an enormous wind band crammed themselves into the always-tight performance space of the Wesley Memorial Church for a fine rendition of Williams’ Sinfonietta for Wind Ensemble. While this was for me a rather inaccessible piece, it served to indicate the wealth of talented wind players in Oxford at the moment.

Throughout the performance, Longstaffe’s conducting exemplified the clarity and reliability for which his instructor Peter Stark is so acclaimed, especially in the more challenging twentieth-century works.

Perhaps unusually for Sinfonietta concerts, the modern pieces were the more successful; the Concert Grosso in particular was a triumph. The savage energy of the violinists created in the “deranged-tennis match” cadenza was immediately absorbed by the harpsichord at the beginning of the rondo, leading to a moment of genuine, fragile beauty in a work full of parody and angst.

The almost theatrical power relations and the tension of the manic mood-swings underscored the raison d’être of the OU Sinfonietta. Such a gripping work cannot really be experienced through recordings, where none of the dynamism – or sheer physicality – of the playing is captured. The remit of the Sinfonietta is to perform works from before 1750 and after 1900, works that often fall outside of the realms of standard listening material, but this concert showed why: without performances of these works, they will never be understood or appreciated.

 

Join the debate: Is Christmas still fun?

0

Dhatri Navanayagam asks Oxford students what Christmas means to them, and what they love and hate about the festive season.

Staircase 22: 5th week, part 2

Ralph is high on something highly reprehensible while Paul is low on his essay crisis. Will Eleanor and Val’s coffee readings come true?

Staircase 22 is recruiting! We’re looking for actors, writers and sound managers to continue production of Staircase 22 next term as well a new producer and director.  If you’d like to know more about getting involved email [email protected] for more information.

Sugarplum charity Ball a success

Cherwell caught up with guests at the Sugarplum Ball in London’s Natural History Museum. Organised by the Oxford Aloysius society, the event aimed to raise money for SOS Children’s Villages.

Blue-sci research

0

Last night, the Times Higher Education ‘Blue skies ahead?’ debate brought together government science minister Lord Drayson and a panel of young scientists, including Oxford Physics’s own Suzie Sheehy, and the Twittersphere, to discuss the future of UK research funding.

The discussion was fairly unfocussed and more than a little ranty, as a handful of disgruntled scientists and teachers proceeded to lambast STFC, the new ‘impact’ assessment integral to grant applications, and science education and outreach. One couldn’t help but feel a little sorry for Drayson, who seemed rather to have been the victim of an ambush.

The biggest and most interesting question up for debate was that of how we should go about allocating money to scientific research. However, though there was plenty of unnerved squirming over research grants drying up, no-one addressed the big question of how to justify how much funding science should get, and how we should divide that between disciplines.

The biggest target of ire was (probably) the new-fangled necessity to justify the ‘impact’ of your research as part of the grant application process. Drayson justified this by saying that the statements provided helped fight the corner of researchers: ‘Impact assessment,’ he said, ‘is needed to help defend the science budget against those who would rather spend the money on something else.’ The question, of course, is how many of the hundreds of thousands of words of impact assessments written will actually make it into a given parliamentary debate—or, less cynically, how we can condense the reams of qualitative information provided into a useful measure of the benefits of our aggregate research strategy.

Many of the comments from scientists deploring the introduction of ‘impact’ assessment seem to be coming at it from the perspective of the persecuted: the implication seemed to be that this new criterion would see their research being cut. Firstly, this confuses me: does every scientist think that they are doing research with abstract and unquantifiable benefits? Is there a crack army of buzzword-tastic, short-term impactful, applied researchers waiting in the wings to come in and snatch all the funding from beneath the highly theoretical old guard’s noses? Since there is no accompanying overall cut in research funding—other than, with unfortunate timing, the ones which were coming anyway—why is everyone expecting that it’s their research which will be dropped?

It seems to me that the most likely outcome won’t be a significant restructuring of the research landscape: surely if you have the expertise to propose a research programme and the lab to back it up, writing a couple of pages about why your research may have ‘impact’ isn’t much of a challenge—and, given that this will be peer-reviewed by sympathetic scientists, explaining that your research is fundamental and hard to quantify will probably elicit a degree of sympathy; scientists understand that basic research is inherently unpredictable.

So, then, if this isn’t a big deal, the question is why we’re bothering at all. The vocal part of the science community, in this debate at least, want evidence that this ‘impact’ thing will help science. Drayson hits back that he wants evidence it will harm it, and scientists hit back back, saying that we can’t prove a negative.

What we need, if we’re to answer the big question of how to assess research money allocation methodologies, is some kind of metric. Against the view popular amongst scientists that some research outcomes are ‘priceless’, or at least totally unquantifiable, we must contrast the pragmatic need to assess how much funding science should receive overall versus defence, health, education and, ultimately, private expenditure as moderated through taxation; and then, how that pot should be split between physics, chemistry and biology, obviously-applied and possibly-useless, and so on. We need a way to measure the benefits of research—with evidence-based, probably-enormous, non-Gaussian error bars. If such an exercise is totally futile, let us find out by the scientific method, and not simply make hysterical objections to a well-intentioned, if possibly ill-founded, government initiative. We need to be able to make an objective assessment of impact statements versus the current system versus putting all the grant applications in a big spreadsheet and throwing darts at it…and so on. Without some numerical evidence, the debate degenerates into status quo bias and soundbites.

If such an assessment does indeed turn out to be impossible—and it’s certainly not inconceivable that it would be—then we need to ask ourselves the complex ethical question of what society is morally obliged to do when we don’t know what to do.

On a less intellectually grand note, I was also a little confused by all the comments regarding outreach—no-one seems to be able to get funding for their ‘out-of-the-box’ youth inspiration schemes. Call me woefully inside-the-box, but I don’t think it’s practical to take every A-level student over to CERN, and I can’t see many ways of engaging young people which aren’t basically talks, leaflets or posters. And, anecdotally, our talk and leaflets, explosions and beachballs science show Accelerate! got some dosh from none other than the squeezed STFC.

And finally, to finish with a dash of cynicism, Lord Drayson: though I am falling foul of my own strict criterion of requiring evidence, might I suggest that to be taken seriously by scientists, phrases like ‘a more flexible framework for assessing excellence’ should be purged from the lexicon at all costs!

Staircase 22: 5th week, part 1

Eleanor’s rat has gone AWOL while Kati’s discovering what exactly it is about hack Peter Renee that earned him his reputation. Will Paul ever get enough peace to finish his essay?

Review: Oxford Alternotives

0

Having heard a preview for the Oxford Alternotives’ end of term concert, it occurs to me that the a cappella genre has a bit of a bad reputation. Say “A Cappella”, and words like “cheesy” and “geeky” spring to mind, along with the vague notion that you might be locked into an auditorium for an hour and forced to listen to that Dell Advert over and over again. But, despite hearing songs like Want You Back and Don’t Stop Me Now within twenty minutes, I never heard a hint of ‘Lollipop’, and left the preview associating the Alternotives more with words like “entertaining”, “understated”, and “impressive”. Whether the music was fast and tricky or slow and luscious, they were always in control, and there were moments when their blend was breathtaking. This isn’t just some glee club concert for chronic shower-singers. This is Pop, Rock and RnB performed with style and ease by a group that has won awards for its arranging, performing, and soloists.

Were there problems? Certainly: occasionally the tuning slipped, the soloists could have smiled a bit more, and their sound sometimes lost cohesiveness in louder parts. But there is a certain amount of satisfaction to be gained from doing things the hard way – like making tea and throwing the teabag away without using a teaspoon – and watching a small group of guys and girls not just sing songs, but perform them entertainingly without the use of instruments or backing tracks, more than made up for tiny errors here and there. Not to say that the show only has gimmick-value – occasionally, you get to hear something truly magical that transcends anything you could ever do with instruments: their version of Bridge Over Troubled Water will leave you emotionally wrecked, tear-soaked, and smiling from ear to ear.

Four Stars

 

Winwood the next President of the Oxford Union

0

Laura Winwood has been voted into the position of the President-Elect of the Oxford Union today. 

Winwood gathered 656 votes against Lou Stoppard’s 535. 

James Kingston has been voted into the position of the Librarian, Will Chamberlain will be the Secretary whilst Dharmesh Nayee is the Treasurer-Elect. 

It is still in doubt who will be the Treasurer. According to RO’s rulings, the position of the Treasurer will go to the person with the highest number of votes on the Standing Committee. 

However James Dray, the President of the society, has ruled that David Thomas will hold the position.

The Standing Committee results have been published today. Rishi Patel, Poppy Simister, Jocky McLean, Zara McGlone and Alice Thomas have all been elected.

Still the best, still too exclusive

0

A report released last week entitled “Oxford and Cambridge: How Different Are They?” has praised Oxford’s academic prowess, but criticised its access record.

The report, conducted by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), concluded that the two universities merited their reputation as the best in the country.

The HEPI research found that while some other universities share Oxbridge’s reputation for being ‘elite’, they “really are different from other universities in the sector, including the small number of institutions with which they are sometimes compared.”

The report states that Oxford students are “exceptionally talented”, and that the resources available to them are the best and most extensive in the UK. They are less likely to drop out of their courses and more likely to receive a high-class degree. Students were also said to be happier with their standard of teaching, and found to spend 30 per cent more time studying than those at other Russell Group universities.

However the HEPI also criticised the apparent lack of diversity at Oxbridge, claiming that it was “vulnerable to the charge of social elitism.”

In 2006 Oxford took in 42 per cent of students from independent schools, while only 7 per cent are educated this way. At Imperial College London 38 per cent were from independent schools, with 34 per cent at UCL.
Bahram Bekhradnia, the director of HEPI admitted, “There is some evidence to suggest that Oxford and Cambridge admit more independent school pupils than is warranted by their subsequent achievement.”

Some students reacted against this criticism. One said, “They can’t praise Oxford for being one of the best universities and then in the next breath start telling it to change the way it does things – that’s utterly ridiculous.”

Bekhradnia went on to suggest that Oxbridge should consider adopting the American approach to university admissions, “There seems no reason why Oxford and Cambridge should not take a leaf out of the book of some of the great American universities which are explicit that they aim to achieve the best social and ethnic mix they can while always insisting on the highest academic standards.”

Oxford, however, released a statement in response to this suggestion stating, “The [HEPI] report’s implication that the University should engage in positive discrimination to adjust its social mix is not something we intend to act on,” and adding that it remained committed to its “purely meritocratic selection process, admitting only those students with the very best ability and potential, from whichever background they come”. The OUSU representative for Access, Jonny Medland, agreed that positive discrimination is not the way forward, and the University should concentrate more on outreach activity.
For entry in 2010 there has been a significant rise in state school applications, with 1,110 more applying than last year. Of the UK students that have applied, 63.6% are from state schools and 36.4% from independent schools.
Furthermore, Oxford already has a system in place looking at applicants’ “contextual data,” though a spokesman stated that “we are only interested in using such data where it is shown to identify true ability.”

The University’s policy as of 2008 is to place a ‘flag’ by applicants who live in a postcode area identified nationally as ‘deprived’, go to a school whose overall GCSE and/or A-level results are lower than the national average, are in care, or who have participated in a specific Oxford University outreach scheme targeted at groups who are under-represented in higher education.
If an applicant receives three flags, is predicted three As at A-level, and is in the top 80% in any pre-interview aptitude tests, they are strongly recommended for invitation to interview. In last year’s selection process, 438 applicants were flagged in enough areas, of whom 284 were predicted three As and came in the top 80% of their written tests. These students were interviewed and 63 gained places.

While the HEPI report admitted that Oxford and Cambridge did not openly show favour towards independent school pupils or those from wealthy backgrounds, it nevertheless claimed that the universities “fall short of an explicit aim to achieve a better social balance in their student populations.” However, the report conceded that the disparity may have more to do with faults in the British education system than discrimination by the universities.
An Oxford spokesperson said, “We welcome the report’s clear confirmation that ‘there is no evidence’ that we are ‘socially discriminatory’ in our admissions.

Achieving a diverse student body at the best universities is something we cannot do alone. At Oxford we spend well over £5m a year on bursaries, nearly £3m a year on outreach, and last year ran 1,500 separate outreach events – but the challenge of social mobility must involve schools and indeed the whole of society.”

 

Ghost forest exhibit hits Denmark

0

Oxford alumna Angela Palmer is taking her evocative art installation ‘Ghost Forest’ from Trafalgar Square to Copenhagen in order to draw attention to the impact of climate change.

‘Ghost Forest’ is a display of 10 stumps, some weighing over 20 tonnes, from the rainforest in Ghana. It is designed to draw attention to the impact of climate change, and specifically deforestation. This is what Palmer, a graduate of Exeter College and The Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art, calls “the removal of world’s ‘lungs’, responsible for a fifth of global carbon emissions. Laser beams will mark the heights the enormous trees would have stood at, had they not been felled.

The project was assisted by a number of Oxford staff, including Dr Yiannis Ventikos and Bob Scott from the Department of Engineering Science, and Professor Yadvinder Mahli from Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, who helped with logistics and advice.

The ten rainforest trees are made up of seven different species logged in Ghana. In the past fifty years, the West African country has lost 90% of its rainforest, in a polluting industrial process that destroys rare ecosystems and removes plants vital for taking carbon dioxide out of the air. Palmer told Cherwell that her “aim is really to inspire debate about rainforests and I hope that’s what all these videos/press/interviews will do. The response has been amazing.”

The ‘Ghost Forest’ will also be seen by 11,000 delegates from the UN climate change conference, people from over 192 countries who will be making many of the political decisions on climate change.

Mae Penner, Chair of OUSU’s Environment & Ethics Campaign said, “deforestation should be one of the first things people think of when climate change is mentioned. This beautiful and unusual exhibition may go some way to making this case. While I don’t believe the primary function of art is to promote political messages, I do believe that it can provide a space for reflection on the culture we live in. Deforestation is one symptom of a culture focused on never-ending economic growth, so it is a deserved subject for artists.”