A report by a government-backed body has recommended that universities are ranked according to new criteria.

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (Ukces) has said that prospective students should be provided with a league table covering five areas: the drop-out rate, class enjoyment, employment rate, future earnings and inspection results.

Chris Humphries, Chief Executive of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills commented, “at the moment, vital statistics about education and training are either not available to the learner or are not easy to compare across courses and institutions.”

“By giving learners more information about the courses they are considering, they will be able to make a more informed choice, with better outcomes all round.”

It is hoped that the introduction of such league tables would introduce a market for courses, encouraging competition between institutions, and meaning that those given low ratings would be forced to improve.

“By being more transparent, we would see the system slowly reforming itself, with good courses prospering and poor ones being forced to make rapid improvements or wither on the vine,” said Humphries.

Second-year Geology student Emma Jude believes that the proposed league tables could be beneficial. “University is about more than the grade you get at the end of it, it is the life experience it gives you. The new information looks like it would make a more well-rounded assessment than conventional league tables, as careers opportunities, quality of teaching and the pressure I am under are more important to me than just getting a first.”

Jonny Medland, OUSU Vice-President for Access and Academic Affairs, was not convinced that another league table would assist prospective students commenting, “League tables can be a good way of providing at-a-glance information about universities. However we already have a proliferation of them, with minor changes being blown up out of proportion at times.”

“Students should put a lot of time into deciding which university to go to and they can’t make that decision on the basis of statistics alone. I’d encourage anyone considering going to university to visit possible choices – there’s no substitute for getting a personal idea of which university would suit you.”

There are fears amongst some that new league tables could lead to an increased rigidity in course content. Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and Colleges Union, said, “The league table culture has been a disaster in schools and hospitals. If applied to colleges it will lead to a narrowing of the curriculum and an impediment to innovation.”

Julian Gravatt, director of funding at the Association of Colleges, disagrees. “You have to trust the customer and use that rather than the central direction we’ve currently got. We see sense in bringing universities into the system too.”

Alistair Strathern, a second-year PPEist, commented, “For me the depth and range of expertise the university had in my subject was the key, so I tended to go on research and teaching ratings. The idea of inspection results might have aided me at the time though.”

He added, “I guess more information sources for students to draw upon when applying has to be a good thing.”

A student at Oxford Brookes is putting forward a proposal to allow students at the university to become life members of the Oxford Union if they have made a contribution to the society as temporary members.



Kay Thomas was invited to the Union’s weekly Standing Committee meeting on Monday by Claire Handel, an elected member of the committee, to discuss her plans.

Thomas, a third year undergraduate, says she was inspired by her grandmother, who graduated from Oxford Brookes last year at the age of 74 and who despite being a passionate supporter of the Union cannot become a life member and enjoy the benefits of the society as an Oxford resident.



“It’s not the case that we want life membership for everyone,” said Ms Thomas.
”We want Brookes students who have participated to have the opportunity after three years [of temporary membership] to submit a request for Life Membership.”



The scheme has been suggested in the past but never gone beyond the planning stage. A detailed proposal will be made next week at Standing Committee and a vote taken by its members, before being passed to the chamber.



Despite widespread approval for the plan, Thomas asserted the need to be scrupulous in her proposal, and set out clear specifications for the Life Memberships. “We’re going to set down specific rules for the procedure so that everyone knows what they’re voting on,” she said.


The Senior Treasurer, Stephen Dixon, agreed with the principle of giving Life Memberships to certain students at Brookes, so long as they had made a commitment to the Union, but expressed some doubts, “it is in our agreement with OLDUT [the charitable governing body of the Union] that their charitable purpose is for the benefit of Oxford University.”



Both Thomas and Handel expressed their conviction that the proposed Life Memberships would be beneficial for the Society and its reputation – among Oxford Students as well as those at Oxford Brookes. Handel said, “If this goes through it will hopefully encourage more Oxford Brookes students to come down and enjoy what the Union has to offer. There is no reason why Brookes students should not be offered the opportunity to apply for life membership, the Union wants to be acknowledged as an inclusive society and this is one way in which it can start working towards this.”

The Oxford Union is rarely publicised within the Oxford Brookes campus, something that Thomas wants to change. She has cited lack of awareness as a key factor in the fact that it has taken so long to set the ball rolling.



Another student at the forefront of this proposal is Penny Sainsbury, who has submitted a passionate written statement to the Union’s Standing Committee.



“My membership of the Oxford Union has been the most rewarding element of my time spent living and studying in Oxford,” she writes. “Attending debates and speeches has given me a valuable avenue into my intended future career. After a talk [at the Union] last year I had the opportunity to speak to a Managing Director of a leading PR firm in the city; from this conversation I was able to formally apply and then go on to secure a month’s placement at the firm. 



“The Oxford Union has therefore presented me with my first opportunity to experience my intended career as well as enabling me to listen to and often meet the people shaping society – its impact has been invaluable!”


This week in the other place, while some students were accused of baring too much flesh and others locked themselves in cages, student journos and boaties have been celebrating confirmation of their long-suspected academic superiority…

Brainpower and boobs

Cambridge’s publication The Tab has been stirring up national attention for its use of scantily-clad Cambridge models. Papers such as The Daily Mail, Telegraph and Guardian have weighed in this week on the debate about ‘Tab Totty’ that has been running between Cambridge women’s rights campaigners and the newspaper’s editors for months.

The Tab frequently accompanies their pictures with statements such as the following from model Heidi: “I’d like to see myself as someone with brainpower and boobs, a pairing which I feel Cambridge culture strives to deny.” Such denial is surely one of the many concerns that will also be raised in Oxford during Gender Equality Week.

Journos cleverest of all, say journos

Student journalists in Cambridge will be feeling pretty smug with the publication of statistics similar to the Norrington Table linking exam scores and extra curricular activities. The table, put together by Varsity student newspaper, rates student journalists as cleverest at the University; they achieve higher marks on average in finals than students of other curricular activities such as drama or choirs.

Rowers were the second most academically successful on average, though they will be pleased to know boaties do achieve the most firsts. Actors came in third above choristers, but bottom of the table were members of drinking societies.

Boaties put their success down to discipline and hard work being in the nature of a good rower. What it is about their nature that makes members of drinking societies do so much worse in exams remains open to speculation.

Tabs in a Cage

Over in Kings, to the delight of Oxford many students, Tabs have been literally locking themselves up in cages this week. In a stunt on King’s College front lawn, students continuously occupied a wooden cage for 48 hours of last weekend. The cage was erected to draw attention to Cambridge University’s Amnesty International campaign to release Aung San Suu Kyi, a Burmese political prisoner.

Unfortunately the tabs were released at 6pm on Sunday and now freely roam Cambridge once more.

Oxford University is considering passing finalists’ information on to pollsters in a bid to improve feedback on student satisfaction.

The news comes as the Conservatives announce their proposals to improve student feedback nationally with the creation of a central online service in which students will be able to rate their tutors.

At present, Oxford is the only institution in the UK that does not publish its student satisfaction results online, as it does not receive enough feedback on the issue.

A spokesperson for the University said the NSS “allows us to benchmark student responses against other Russell Group universities. The lower the response rate to a survey, the less reliable it is perceived, and the less we can be sure about the accuracy of the feedback in the survey.”

OUSU have passed a motion suggesting the University be permitted to give the phone numbers of finalists to polling companies three to four weeks after the survey has been sent to students. Plans are not yet finalised and contact details would only be passed on in the event that less than 45% of students respond to the survey.

Richard Holland, St. Anne’s JCR VP for Access and Academic Affairs believes “if it’s done well, it shouldn’t be a problem”, stressing the importance of allowing students to opt out of the scheme. He claimed it is a good idea, provided there are enough “safeguards”.

Sarah Reder, a second year student at St. Hilda’s commented, “I don’t like the idea of my details being given out to organisations, but if I can opt out, I’m happy for the plan to go ahead.”

Students sharing their experiences of courses will also be key to Tory plans for improving information on Universities available to the public.

Speaking at the CBI’s Higher education summit in London this week, David Willetts, shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, has outlined his plan for the service. Mr Willetts insisted there was a need for such a service, “We are expecting [students] to make important choices about courses and institutions without enabling them to be as well informed as they could be.”

The website would also contain information about employment prospects for graduates from particular courses and institutions, and feedback from current students.

Willets said, “We already collect quite a lot of data about, for example, employment after 6 months and after 3 years, but it is not currently available in a detailed or usable form that is easily accessible for potential students. This has to change.”

Sites that already provide a similar service have attracted criticism in the past. Ratemyprofessor.com allows students to rate their lecturers on “easiness”, “helpfulness”, “clarity” and “hotness”,and allows students to post comments. Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the University and College Union, said such sites could lead to “serious online and offline bullying. If students have real concerns about their lecturers, they should go through the proper channels and try to resolve the issue.”

Jonny Medland, OUSU VP for Access and Academic Affairs, says such a public feedback system could be avoided, “If universities take action now then hopefully we can avoid students resorting to posting feedback online to try and get their universities to take notice of their views.”

Will Sentance, a PPEist at St John’s, was concerned the proposed website would require too much regulation to prevent bullying to be effective, “If it is being regulated you won’t get any comments of any use, so I don’t think it is necessarily a good idea.”

A group of men in Balliol College are taking part in a moustache-growing competition to raise money for charity.

22 hardy souls, or Balliol ‘Mo-Bros,’ have joined a contest to see who can grow the best moustache during ‘Movember’ and many more are expected to sign up.

Movember is a worldwide, annual, month long event during which men grow moustaches to raise money and awareness for men’s health issues. The money donated in the UK goes to The Prostate Cancer Charity.

Matt Parsfield, a third-year English undergraduate, organised the Movember movement at Balliol. “I had the idea that a group of us at Balliol should participate in the scheme – this is the kind of thing that’s a lot more effective and amusing if there are a large number of people doing it, and we’ll all feel the benefit of the camaraderie, knowing that we all look like idiots rather than just one person.

“I had the idea when I was drunk in the bar and I stumbled around trying to persuade everyone to take part; thankfully most of the people I asked were as intoxicated as I was and agreed.”

Balliol JCR has been very supportive of the scheme, pledging £300 to The Prostate Cancer Charity on the condition that at least 20 people complete the challenge. Added to that, £100 has been set aside for the winner of the ‘best moustache’ competition to donate to a charity of his choice. The participants themselves are also raising money from sponsorship – at the moment Hector Page is leading the way with £135.

Page told Cherwell, “I think it’s a fun way to raise money for a good cause, not to mention I’m of the age and have the follicular prowess to need an excuse to experiment. I’m certain I can grow a moustache that is both a crippling hindrance to my social/sex life and a real money-spinner.”

Thomas Mason is also taking part. “While refuting that I look like a baby, I fully intend to look merely extremely dirty by the end of the month. I haven’t really thought of it as team effort to be honest, more a pact of individuals to each engage in their own battle against fashion, aesthetics, social conformity, and in my case nature.”

Iain Large, JCR president, plans to join the Mo-Brotherhood, “I am fairly confident in my ability to grow the moustache (beards, by the way, have been strictly forbidden, as they look far too sensible)… Whether the men of Balliol will have the steadfastness to cultivate such a hideous hirsute disfigurement on their fair faces is another matter.”

Parsfield extends a challenge to other members of the university. “I think it would be great if people reading this article from other colleges decided to get a college team together – there’s nothing like a bit of inter-collegiate facial hair rivalry.” Large’s aims are perhaps even more ambitious, “The next stop on our recruitment drive? The Balliol fellowship…”

Over 100 Oxford academics are protesting against proposals by the Research Excellence Framework (REF) to change the funding structure of research.

The academics have added their names to a 4042 strong petition against the proposals currently under consideration, joining the likes of Richard Dawkins and 6 Nobel laureates.

The most controversial REF proposal is that 25% of the marks on which funding is based come from the ‘impact’ of the research – how it will effect economic, social, cultural or quality of life well-being of this country. Members of the UCU (University and Colleges Union), who drew up the petition, argue that making research conditional on perceived economic and social benefits is “counterproductive.”

They point out, “It is often difficult to predict which research will create the greatest practical impact. History shows us that in many instances it is curiosity-driven research that has led to major scientific and cultural advances. If implemented, these proposals risk undermining support for basic research across all disciplines and may well lead to an academic brain drain to countries such as the United States that continue to value fundamental research.”

Many Oxford academics have added their voices to the debate. Todd Huffman, Physics Lecturer and Senior Physics Fellow at LMH, explains that it can be impossible to gauge the true strength of impact before research takes place. “What is the economic impact of the unknown? Good research is, fundamentally, the exploration of the unknown and following that where it may take you. Since it is unknown you cannot make any sort of ‘impact statement’ which is anything more than a waste of time for all concerned.”

Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, the Chair of the Oxford Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages, agrees that the idea of ‘impact’ is somewhat flawed – “Humanities research has an impact in the long term – maybe 20 or 30 years later in some cases. The REF does not deal with such a long time-frame. In addition, a lot of research we do is into non-British cultures. This adds both to our understanding of those cultures and of those cultures’ understanding of themselves. But the REF’s impact factors take no account of impact abroad.”

Drew Foxall of Christ Church worries that the proposals would encourage the wrong sort of research. “There’s a danger, I think, if these proposals go through that we’ll see an increased emphasis on impacts that may be more about the promotion of the ‘public academic’ and getting his/her message ‘out there’, rather than the promotion of processes for socially just change. The two don’t always sit happily together.” Foxall also states “contact with national international policy bodies will likely be construed as far better than local, grassroots, activism-based work”, which may well lead to far less radical change.”

There are also problems with the clarity of the proposals. For example, Watanabe-O’Kelly claims that although “research in the Humanities has a huge impact, the proposals as to how to measure it are very, very vague”.
The University was unable to comment on the matter, as it is still in the consultation phase.

The entire water supply to LMH was cut off on Friday morning following a burst pipe which threatened to flood the college.

Students and staff were notified by email that from 10am Thames Water would be shutting off their normal supply to college kitchens and bathrooms. Emergency toilet facilities were put in place for students, who were urged to be careful about using the water which remained in the system.
The first signs of a leak had appeared on Thursday morning, outside the entrance to the Deneke building. College maintenance teams spent the day trying to identify its source and to shut off the water supply to that area of the College alone, but without success.

Fearing that the water would damage College buildings, a temporary pump and piping system were set up to channel water away from the area and into a separate drain.
Although the temporary diversion was successful in halting the flooding of the area around the Deneke building, it became clear that since it was not possible to turn off the water supply to the specific location of the problem, water to the whole College would have to be cut off.

The move was deferred until mid-morning on Friday to allow students to wash and eat breakfast, and lunch services also remained unaffected. The water was turned back on at 3pm after the problem had been located and successfully dealt with.

Although first thought to have been caused by the ongoing building work at LMH, the leak was in fact found to have been caused by a 6-inch crack in an old lead pipe.

LMH were keen to stress that water had at no point entered College buildings. Jake Leeper, LMH’s JCR Vice-President commented, “It was good to hear that no student rooms, or staff offices, were affected by the leak, and that we were able to make sure that students were not without water for a long time. This is part of the nature of the charm of Oxford’s older buildings, they come with old infrastructures and sometimes these can have their negative sides. We were lucky that the situation didn’t develop into something much worse and I hope that the college will work to identify any further potential dangers for the future.”