Most students just don’t seem to care about OUSU, why should they?

I think students should care about OUSU because it has the potential to have a real impact on their experience of Oxford. In the past, OUSU has been chiefly concerned just with talking about issues and talking about itself but I think it really has the chance to provide relevant services for students. I think it has the chance to give training and support to common rooms and societies and I think it has a crucial role to play in representing students to the university, to the city council and to the government. And for those reasons, I think students should be interested.

What evidence is there to suggest that the future of OUSU will be any different from the past?

I think the signs are quite promising for OUSU in the future, to be honest. In the past, there have been issues with the finances and I think there has been a general problem of too much talk and not enough action. But, I think, actually, from speaking to people in the university and from speaking to the current sabbatical officers, the future does look exciting in terms of new services, like the provision of a housing fair, a discount card but also the opportunity to work with the university to tackle big issues like the gender gap in finals. So, I think with the right sabbatical team there is a chance for OUSU to become much more relevant and provide dramatic improvements for students at Oxford.

You mentioned action, what do you think OUSU could do to involve more of the student body?

I think OUSU could do a couple of things. Firstly, it has to be in a much better relationship with common rooms and with societies and one of the things OUSU could do is provide training and support. I think OUSU has to be careful not to impose itself on common rooms and not pretend it can do those things which common rooms and societies do best. But, I think in terms of training that can be provided, like bookkeeping skills, bringing in professional companies to give society and common room representatives the support that they need in order to do a great job. I think through that it can really tap in to student interest. I think students really are interested in the issues that OUSU tackles, but at the moment it is very difficult to see what OUSU does about those issues and to see the ways that they can become involved in OUSU. Those are both things that I want to change.

At this week’s Exeter hust only four people turned up; do you think OUSU advertises itself enough? Do you think that’s a problem and how can it be solved?

I think it is a real problem. I mean Oxford is a place where people are incredibly busy, where there are multiple pulls on people’s time, but I think OUSU needs to be much more strategic in the way that it puts itself out there. I think the current campaign for students getting involved in OUSU is great, but I would like to see them use the media in new ways, for example. Obviously, editorial independence of both the newspapers is hugely important, but I think for OUSU to have the opportunity to project its voice in the media, in things like Oxide Radio, the Oxford Student, the Cherwell. It needs to be promoting a positive sense of what OUSU does and what students really care about. It does come back to the issue of what OUSU actually does because if people don’t feel that it does anything relevant, OUSU can advertise itself all it wants and no one will listen. OUSU fundamentally has to get down to doing something that students care about and that’s the way to make people believe it’s something that worth getting involved in and taking an interest in.

Cherwell reported last week that OUSU has made huge losses. There has been speculation as to why this might be and whether it was due to mismanagement, what do you think you can do to turn around the funding and the efficiency of OUSU?

I think the president has a really important role. The president is the person who can bring together all the major players and the major stakeholders in OUSU. OUSU needs a new funding model, yes, mistakes were made in the past, but I think, fundamentally, the funding model for OUSU was not sustainable, it was constantly incurring losses. We need a new model and we need a discussion on the services that OUSU should provide and who should be paying for those. I would bring together colleges, bring the university into this discussion, use my experience as a JCR President and working with these kinds of people, bring them together and get them to sign up to a new model which will ensure that all the services we want from OUSU are going to adequately funded and in a sustainable and effective manner.

Stefan Baskerville said quite recently that colleges should be funding OUSU, whereas at the moment it’s the JCRs. Would you agree with that, do you think colleges should be putting money into OUSU?

Personally, yes I think colleges should be putting money into OUSU. There’s a real argument for services that OUSU provides that colleges should be paying for and contributing to. Again, it’s one of those things where the question of at what stage you take the money and fund it into OUSU is in some ways not the most relevant one. Because, of course a lot of money that the colleges get has come from the university or it has come from the government. So, in some ways it could be passed between the university and colleges and back again. What we need to do it sit them both down and get them both to agree on a funding model that will work. There was no strategic plan for how htat could be done last year and that’s somewhere where I would use my experience as a JCR president and use the team that I’ve got to make sure that that happens.

Do you think that students could maybe even pay for OUSU in the same way that they pay for punts and welfare on battels? Do you think that would increase student participation?

I don’t think that would be a hugely effective way to fund OUSU because I don’t think that would reflect the reason why OUSU exists. OUSU exists in order to represent students in all areas of their life and that means that every student comes to Oxford as a member of OUSU although they can personally disaffiliate. But I think the system we have whereby they are part of OUSU through the colleges is a really healthy system that links students to OUSU through the common rooms. The Oxford structure is so unique, that actually the way that the model works at the moment, the way that students contribute is effective because it means that you can have a proper debate in common rooms about what OUSU does and I think that provides a level of stability that’s really important for basic services.

You mentioned implementing a new funding model, can you give a specific example?

It’s very difficult to predict exactly what that new funding model would look like. Not least because Stefan and the team are currently working incredibly hard to make sure that that’s in place. There’s a chance that it mmight be in place even before this time next year so in some ways it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to say now what the model would look like. But, I would say that the one feature of it would be that it would be a diverse funding model, with funding from lots of different sources and it would be a sustainable one. People would commit to funding in a long term and effective manner.

What do you think about the government student funding review that was launched on Monday and what position would you take on it if you were to become OUSU President?

The sad thing about it is that the government has ignored calls both from OUSU and from the NUS to have students involved in that process. That’s a huge shame and is something that OUSU needs to continue to press the government on. It’s scandalous that the government has t

reated the funding review in the way that it has done so far. The position that I would take is that I personally think that a graduate tax is the way forward. I understand the frustration of many Oxford students who say that they haven’t been consulted on this. OUSU has a graduate tax policy but it’s not really got a strong mandate for that because it hasn’t suggested how a graduate tax would work in practice. The NUS have a blueprint out on how exactly a graduate tax would work. I think we need to take that to students at Oxford, we need to have that debated and discussed amongst students and common rooms and we need to bring that to OUSU council so we can think about whether we want to work with NUS on trying to pressure the government to implement that.

Is there any decision that Stefan Baskerville has taken that you think you could have done better?

Obviously, it’s quite early days in terms of Stefan’s presidency and I think he will do a great job. I think he’s been in very difficult circumstances at the moment because OUSU is racked with internal problems. But there hasn’t yet been enough focus on the services that OUSU can provide. There are practical things that OUSU can do to affect every student’s life in Oxford, things like trying to make Sky subscriptions cheaper in common rooms, or bringing out a discount card or getting increased job opportunites for students. All these things we can do and we can do them very easily and at very minimal cost. There hasn’t yet been a focus from Stefan and his team on new service ideas, and that is a crucial part of how to make OUSU relevant in the long term.

Who would be your role model for president, which OUSU President do you think has achieved the most?

I spoke to Martin McClusky over the summer about the role of OUSU President. He was president during my first year and I only met him a couple of times, just after I became JCR President at Worcester. I think he did a great job. The fact that he was Scottish obviously gives me a sense of affinity but he also brought common rooms together. He started the process of a new policy making structure for OUSU, which we’re now coming to the end of. He was at once an approachable and really likeable character but I think he was also quite a serious thinker and someone that cared deeply about OUSU in the long term and not just for his year.

In terms of the policy making structure, we’ve seen that delayed by a term, what do you think was the main cause of this delay?

Essentially, it just wasn’t thought through how it was going to work practically. We are seeing now that the motion calling for the new policy making structure is about three of four pages long because it has to go into detail about all the things in the constitution which need to be changed in order to make it work. Frankly, there just wasn’t enough effort put into how to make this work. But also there just wasn’t enough effort put into how it would work in relation to the university. All changes to OUSU’s constitution have to be put to the university in order to be approved and this was just not done last year. It was a fairly catastrophic failure in terms of really basic issues of making sure something is sustainable for the long term. It reflects the problem of OUSU in the past which is that is has been focussed just on the personalities that are involved and maybe too short term focussed and not focussed on the impact that it can potentially have in the long term and the way in which it can really affect students in Oxford.

What makes you a better candidate than Jake Leeper?

There are a couple of things. My experience makes me a better candidate. I’ve been a JCR President which means not only do I have the experience of responsibility for serving students and really seeing the issues that matter to them, but it also means that I have fought for students. One of the things that makes charities and JCRs fundamentally very different is that charities fight against apathy whereas colleges fight against opposition. I have had to deal with college officials and university officials who do not have students interests at their heart and I’ve had to fight for students in that way. I also think the team we have sets up apart, myself Alex and Katherine, all share a vision of what OUSU can be and all share a practical record of making change in Oxford. The way in which we work together and see areas we can tackle together, like the gender gap, which isn’t just an academic issue but also a representation issue, that’s something that can never be tackled just by one sabbatical officer, it needs a coordinated approach and that’s what we would bring to the job. That’s what sets us apart.

Despite launching a “Get Involved” campaign and measures to inform students about “what OUSU does for you” there is still very low student participation in the election process. Only four students turned up to a major hust at Exeter on Monday evening where both presidential candidates were speaking. Tuesday’s central hust, held at Magdalen, also failed even to fill the auditorium.

Sam Smith, Pembroke JCR committee member, commented, “The impression I get is that OUSU is quite inaccessible and has a reputation of being very ineffectual.”

A number of positions, including major sabbatical ones like VP for Welfare and Equal Opportunities and VP for Access and Academic Affairs, are uncontested. No candidate is running for the position of VP Graduates.

One graduate at Wadham, who was also at Oxford during his undergraduate days, said, “I’m not well-informed about it at all – OUSU really can’t be very effective if I don’t know about what it

does.”

Following the news last week of OUSU’s debt problems, St Catherine’s College MCR co-president, Ben Britton, commented,”It is no surprise that there are so few candidates willing to run a broken institution.”

OUSU election rules are notoriously strict and have resulted in the fining of two candidates over the past week.

Presidential candidate, Jake Leeper, was fined 5% of his publicity budget for an article he wrote for the OxStu before he nominated himself. Will McCullum, former Wadham SU President and candidate for VP Charities and Communities, was also fined for providing quotes in his capacity as media contact for Climate Camp.

Red tape surrounding OUSU elections has prompted some students to suggest that it may be off-putting to those who may otherwise want to nominate themselves, and could contribute to the image of OUSU as unapproachable.

But OUSU Returning Officer, Oliver Linch, has reiterated the importance of election rules, “Elections must be conducted according to Rules, and the OUSU Electoral Rules are designed to level the playing field and guarantee that everyone that wants to run has an equal opportunity.”

Elections are due to take place Tuesday – Thursday in 6th week, with all students being emailed personalised voting numbers to enable them to vote online. Last year, elections were beset by technical problems when personalised voting codes only arrived half way through the two-day window for voting.

The election itself was also set back an entire week after OUSU’s publishing arm failed to print the manifesto of presidential candidate John Maher in the Joint Manifesto Booklet.

Elections this year already got off to a flying start with a “technical glitch” meaning that candidates’ lists could not be published online until last Saturday, the day after they were released. However, Linch assures us, “We have spent hours ensuring that the list is accurate this time”.

A specialist care home for the elderly near Abingdon is to close after St John’s College, the landowner, raised the rent 900%.

Southmoor House, near Abingdon, which cares for 24 residents with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia, cannot afford the financial burden of both the college’s rent rise and the costly building repairs it needs to keep running. A spokesperson said it is “financially impossible” to keep the home open.

The family-run care facility has been open for more than 60 years, with some residents having lived there for more than ten. It employs 25 carers, who have specialist training in caring for dementia patients.

In response to the closure, St John’s College explained it “regrets the loss of any business tenant but, as a charity, the college [has] a duty and legal responsibility to make best use of its assets to support its programmes of education and research.”

According to Julie Dabrowski, a senior carer at the home, staff were given a month’s notice of the closure. However, it is now expected to stay in operation until February. She explained that the home had attempted to renegotiate the deal with St John’s, but this fell through.

Dabrowski went on to say that she was very concerned for the well-being of the patients at the home, given that specialised care of the type offered by Southmoor House is difficult to find. Some of the patients are in the home privately and some through the NHS, and she was particularly worried about the possibility of finding new homes for those on government funding.

In addition, the upheaval is likely to be harmful to some patients – one resident is too frightened to leave the building, and she is anxious the trauma of a move may lead to the death of one or more elderly patients. In light of this, she said losing her job was a “secondary concern”.

A DPhil student at St John’s, Jonah Rosenberg, expressed confidence in the college’s decision, saying that “though it’s certainly not the most pleasant transaction … [I] trust that this will have been a necessary part of keeping the college economically healthy. St John’s academic mission cannot be valued as more or less worthy than the care of the elderly; in an ideal world, both would be feasible.”

He added that he did not believe the ninefold rent increase was arbitrary, “but rather the result of the college not having revalued the property for some time.”

The Women’s Institute (WI) has experienced a year of heightened student interest, with the establishment of first two University branches and requests to set up a branch in Oxford.
The WI, which is an organisation established to provide women with educational opportunities, has been already established at Goldmith’s University and King’s college London.

There have been many positive responses to this news in Oxford. A representative of Oxford Women in Politics, Marta Szczerba, stated that she is “positive about the idea of Women’s Institute cooperating with Universities around the UK” and praised the fact that “Women’s Institute has been a force in campaigning against women’s violence”. Other current national campaigns include ‘Women and Climate Change Campaign’ and ‘Care Not Custody’ for the mentally ill.

This support was echoed by Cynthia Chang, a DPhil student at Christ Church, and a representative of Females in Science, Engineering and Technology. Chang said that women often “need a network” and that there would probably be a “significant proportion” of women students at Oxford who would be interested in “producing things with their own hands”.

However, some students were less enthused. Rachel Harrison, of Christ Church College, pointed out that the organisation carried the negative stereotype of “being for old people”. Sara Stafford, also of Christ Church, thought that it was “not a good idea” and probably “wouldn’t be very popular”. She went on to say that she felt Oxford “has enough volunteering groups”.

Many Oxford students have agreed that the opportunity to engage in activities such as learning how to make tie-dyed sustainable shopping bags and how to knit iPod cases fills a niche not currently occupied by the various clubs and societies in Oxford. Angharad Scott, St Anne’s College, enthusiastically supported the idea of an Oxford group, and said that she thought it sounded “really cool” as long as it had nothing to do with “tea towels and cabbages”.
While the image of the WI may not fit in with that of the typical student society, India Volkers, the founder and President of Goldsmith’s WI, emphasised the benefits of membership. “Starting a WI has meant that my friends and I are able to learn useful practical skills that we may not otherwise have been taught.”

The President of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes argued that getting involved with the WI could provide women with key skills pointing out, “students are under increasing pressure these days to have additional skills as well as their degree, and the WI offers women the chance to learn new skills that they wouldn’t normally have access to.”

Oxford’s departmental libraries made almost £150,000 from library fines last year, Cherwell has learnt.

Oxford University libraries raked in £146,085 from late returns in the academic year ending July 2009. This figure does not take into account the money raised by college libraries.

Oxford University Library Services (OULS) operate a standardised fining system in the majority of their libraries, charging 20p per day for standard loans, £1 per day for short loans and 50p per hour for overnight loans.
These tariffs do not apply to the Continuing Education Library, Health Care Libraries, Latin American Centre Library or the Said Business School. Loan periods also vary between libraries.

James Shaw, Library Services Manager at the Radcliffe Science Library explained that the income gained from library fines is not used for “a specific purpose as such; they contribute towards the general running of OULS.” The maximum fine for a book from an OULS library is generally £10, yet many students reported higher figures, with one student complaining of a total of £160 owed for lost volumes.

“There needs to be some sort of incentive for students to return books on time”

College income from library fines varies greatly. St. Peter’s collected £2756.08 in fines last year, while St. Anne’s raised £650 and Somerville received £430. The highest possible fine at St Peter’s is £20.
Some libraries, including Lincoln, Queen’s, Brasenose, Wadham and Jesus do not charge students any library fines. Jesus Librarian Sarah Cobbold explained that the fact that fines are not charged “is not born of philanthropy, rather of pragmatism.” One Lincoln student agreed that the system was effective, “Lincoln library doesn’t fine but puts you on a blacklist instead, relying on peoples’ consciences…and it works!”

Other consciences are not so clear. One third year Wadhamite admitted that since the college does not have a Librarian present at all times and does not charge fines, students “just take [books] without checking them out and keep them forever, so half our books are missing.”
The variation in cross-college attitudes towards library fines has frustrated some students, with one third year commenting, “Fines should be standard across colleges. If lots of libraries can survive without charging fines, why does mine have them?”

Jonny Medland, OUSU VP for Access and Academic Affairs agreed that fairness needed to be an important consideration, “There needs to be some sort of incentive for students to return books on time and proportionate library fines can have a role to play in this. It’s important that fines are capped, so that students can’t rack up huge bills if their books are a few days overdue. Colleges should look at what they do in this area and see if it’s truly effective – if some colleges are far harsher than others then it’s a problem.”

Colleges that do not operate a fining system can still charge for lost books. Worcester charged £217 for lost books last year, while Lincoln collected a total of £42. St. Anne’s estimates the cost of unreturned books to the library at around £100 each year. Susan Griffin, Hertford College Librarian said, “I am afraid I don’t know [the amount] because students steal so many.” Harris Manchester Library claims one student still owes them £600 worth of books.

The Oxford Union charges 10p a day for overdue books and £1 a day for overdue audiovisual items, with a limit on both of £10. If a member fails to return a book after being contacted twice by the Union, they are banned from borrowing from the library, their name is posted on the library notice board and their Union membership could be suspended.

Libraries will usually waive fines in extenuating circumstances. Most cite illness as a valid reason for a fine to be waived and some colleges take examinations into account. David Smith, Librarian at St. Anne’s College said, “People actually taking exams when books fall due are exempt from fines.”

James Smith of OULS pointed out that around 60% of library users are taking exams every Trinity so “we can’t treat them all as special cases.” He pointed out that some libraries offer extended loans during exam periods. 74% of students surveyed by Cherwell don’t think students should be allowed to return books late during exams, many pointing out that examination periods are a crucial time for everyone to have access to books.

Universities are trialling a new certificate giving a detailed breakdown of grades to graduates, which could eventually replace traditional degree classifications.

Students studying Biology, English, Accounting and Creative Art at eighteen universities across the UK are trialling the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR). Upon graduation, they will receive a report detailing their results in all modules, as well as a summary of other activities undertaken at university.

Currently almost two thirds of graduates achieve a first class or upper second class (2:1) degree, leading to complaints that it is difficult to distinguish between them. In 2008, for example, 95.8% of Oxford History finalists attained a 2:1 or a first class degree.

Oxford University is already taking its own steps towards giving graduates more information, working to provide full transcripts for those who started their courses from 2008. A spokesperson said that the university “will consider future developments carefully, in the light of the results of the pilot study.”

OUSU’s VP for Access and Academic Affairs, Jonny Medland, said that HEARs should only be used if they benefit students. “Any decision about further expanding Higher Education Achievement Reports will have to come after we see how trialling them has worked. Like any other University, Oxford should always be working to introduce fairer methods of assessment and to improve the student experience.”

The trial was prompted by the results of a wide-ranging investigation into the degree classification system by Professor Robert Burgess, Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University. His report’s recommendations were largely against a radical replacement system for the current honours degree classification, which is well-respected worldwide. However, it did call for a system which gave employers more information about graduates.

Aaron Porter, Vice President (Higher Education)of the NUS, welcomed the trial. “It is clear that the current degree classification system is no longer fit for purpose; students deserve a more detailed acknowledgment of their overall achievement from their time in higher education.”

Nehaal Bajwa, a Balliol PPE finalist, was concerned that a HEAR would cause too much focus on academic work. “There won’t be that 10% leeway between getting a 2:1 and a 2:2 as every percentage point will count for more.”

However, some students have questioned whether HEARs will help employers choose the right candidate. There are concerns that instead of making it easier for employers to judge candidates, HEARs will make the drawn-out recruitment process even less efficient. Currently many employers do not consider applications of graduates with a 2:2 or below.

Tom Nicholson, a finalist at Magdalen, said, “This no doubt delights those who are keen to see ex-poly hairdressing students become corporate lawyers, as it obfuscates traditional (and, dare I say, pretty indicative) associations between top grades at top universities and important career-related attributes, such as intelligence. In practice employers will still look for ways to come to snap judgements within whatever system one introduces – and they’ll still hire the same candidates.”