Careers advisors at the Oxford University Careers Service have strongly criticised draft plans to transform the service, labelling the proposals “a disgrace”.

The plans, circulated to prominent members of the University, would aim to engage more students by drastically cutting the number of people receiving personal interviews with staff.

Over a third of students who use the service currently have one-to-one 45-minute discussions sessions – a privilege that will be available to only 3% if the changes, as currently drafted, come into force. Instead, careers advisors will organise spontaneous 5-minute drop-in clinics and one-to-many, group activities.

Some members of staff have expressed concern that the plans would threaten the quality of the service. One advisor said, “The document issued by the Director is a disgrace. Not only does it offer ridiculous proposals for the future, but it seriously misrepresents what the Careers Service does currently, and has done in the recent past.”

Another member of staff commented, “Many in the careers service have concerns, peculiarly over whether the increased quantity will not compromise quality.”

The document was drafted by the Careers Service Director, Jonathan Black, who has come under fire for the troubled rollout of the new OUCS website, as well as declining use of the careers service during his directorship.

Black vigorously defended the new proposals, stating that it is crucial for the service to increase involvement. He said, “We want to improve quality and quantity… It is unusual for people to go to the service. We have to go to you – to your college to your department.”

He added, “A successful example of our work is Oxford students consultancy programme – it’s a real experience. It’s an example of a programme we’ve launched and we have given a value added service.”

The document denies that the suggested changes are an exercise in cost-cutting. It states, “while the plans are projected to reduce the operating costs of the Service, it is worth emphasising that the key driver of this plan has been raising engagement levels, not reducing costs.”

The new model would not only reduce one-to-one contact, but also decentralise the service, with more events taking place in colleges and departments. This is in order to “increase the perceived value added to a much higher proportion of the student audience”.

Some college head have expressed support for the suggestions. Sir Michael Scholar, the head of St John’s college stated, “I think it is a good idea to involve colleges more. There still will be a centrally located venue.”

Peter Oppenheimer, a fellow at Christ Church commented, “If they have a plan for the reducing the number of jobs, then that in itself is a good thing with the university’s current financial situation.”

Some careers advisors also expressed concerns that the statistics included in the plans have been selectively chosen and misrepresent the service’s current status.

The document mentions that Oxford came 26th place in the High Fliers Survey in terms of levels of engagement. Yet, it fails to mention that it came 6th in the same survey in terms of student satisfaction.

Tim Wise, Research Director at High Fliers pointed out that to suggest that Oxford is 26th without any context is “somewhat misleading.”

“The right people go to the Universities service and they rate it very highly. To my mind, the Oxford careers service is very effective.”

Some have also suggested that the careers survey mentioned in the document has not been representative as only 3% of the student body was surveyed.

Black denied these allegations stating, “These statistics were checked by the Department of Statistics. Only 6% of students came in Michaelmas Term 2008 for one-to-one consultations.”

Black has been criticised by staff members over OUCS’s new website, as well as claims that use of the service has declined during his appointment.

One careers advisor said, “The Director also insisted on the rushed introduction of a new web and IT system which has been a serious failure, offering much reduced functionality and which is exceptionally user unfriendly – with far fewer students now making use of our website than prior to its “upgrading” in January 2009.

“The reduced usage of the website, and its lack of integration into other careers service activities has also contributed to lower physical usage of the Careers Service over the past four months.”

The director confirmed that use of the service has dropped recently. He refused to comment on website figures, but said that 50% of students have registered with the online service.

Lewis Iwu, OUSU president said, “OUSU is always committed to ensuring that the University delivers useful, meaningful and tailored services to its students and this will be reflected when I give formal feedback to the Careers Service on this issue.”

The new proposals have been met with scepticism by some students. One Physics postgraduate said, “I don’t really see the colleges as being different enough to warrant bespoke careers guidance, to be honest. This new college representatives idea would doubtless cost quite a lot but, as I see it, have relatively small gains.”

The Said Business School has come under fire for controversial appointments to an advisory board on corporate reputation.

The new hires include Douglas Daft, a former CEO of Coca-Cola company accused by campaigners of deliberately ignoring the murders of unionists in Colombia.

Oxford Amnesty International vice-president Ruth Simister accused the Said Business School of being “founded upon investments in the arm trade, having been donated £63 million by Wafic Said, and it looks like the School is set to further its links with individuals embroiled in violations of human rights.” She added that the school’s decision to appoint Daft “sends out a message that the University does not take the abuse of human rights seriously and is willing to support those involved not just in such abuses but in their silencing.”

John Tiner, the former director of the Financial Services Authority, has also been appointed. He is infamous for his support of ‘principles based regulation’, which many believe led the FSA to take an irresponsible approach to banking supervision.

Another new appointment to the board is Andy Hornby, ex-chief executive of HBOS plc. Hornby was widely criticised for his leadership of the bank, which lead to the emergency rescue deal with Lloyds TSB in January.

Both men were included in the Guardian’s ‘twenty-five people at the heart of the meltdown’, published this January.

The appointments have been met with resigned cynicism by some students. One first year politics student commented, “If the Said Business School thinks that Andy Hornby and John Tiner are qualified to advise on reputation, then I can only laugh.”

OULC President Jacob Turner, however, expressed more serious concerns. “The phrase “Corporate Reputation” might be a contradiction in terms these days, but the least they could have done might be to select someone who is not a bastion of exploitative capitalism.”

Rupert Younger, Director of the Centre for Corporate Reputation, defended the choices, saying, “Those invited [to the board] are committed to co-operation with academia to help further the understanding of reputation creation, maintenance, destruction and rehabilitation within corporations.

Also important is their contribution to Oxford’s Executive Education and so we selected those who would bring a valuable perspective to the education programmes we are offering.”

The Centre was established in January 2008 to promote “a better understanding of the way in which the reputation of corporations and institutions around the world are created, enhanced, and protected.”

The members of the Global Advisory Board are appointed by the centre, and serve for a period of 5 years. They are selected from a wide pool of corporate experience, and the School proudly comments that the Board includes, “very senior executives who are internationally recognised in their fields from industry, the professions, journalism, the Civil Service, regulators and from the third sector.”

The reaction from students involved in business has been supportive. Jordan Poulton, President-elect of Oxford Entrepreneurs said that he trusted the decision of the school, stating that Mr Hornby and Mr Tiner had previously had successful careers. He added that the criticism that Hornby had received “may indeed make him more qualified to sit on an advisory board for a centre focused on Corporate Reputation, since he will have experience of how easy corporate reputations are to damage, and one mustn’t underestimate the educational benefits that mistakes can bring.”

Many students agreed that advice on corporate reputation may be more valuable coming from those who have seen how easily reputations can be damaged. One Magdalen first-year commented that those appointed “know more than anyone about the difficulties that can be faced by firms in maintaining corporate reputation under challenging circumstances.”

The Said Business School, set up in 1996, is not a stranger to controversy: the involvement of Wafic Said in the Al Yamamah arms deals of the 80s meant many were reluctant to accept his donation of £23m. The offer was initially rejected by the formal parliament of senior academics due to his brokering role in the contracts between the BAE systems and the Saudi government. Although the Serious Fraud Office was investigating allegations of bribery and corruption related to the deals, the investigation was discontinued in 2006 on grounds of ‘public interest’.

Colleges have been experiencing clashes between administrators and students as annual rent negotiations have begun.

Colleges have been claiming that their endowments are not sustainable in the long run and in the current economic climate interest on these has been minimal. They have sought to recoup their losses from students instead.

OUSU Rent and Accommodation officer Jamie Susskind argued: “There is a certain hypocrisy in the fact that when the OCCI (Oxford Colleges Cost Index) is high, colleges insist upon using it, but when it is lower (like this year) they suddenly decide it’s an inadequate measure of inflation. Students have the right to feel hard done by in colleges where this is the case.”

At Merton, many students expressed dissatisfaction with the new rates. 4 years ago, rent increases were negotiated to be increased by 12%, to be implemented in the coming year.

Alistair Haggerty, JCR President commented “The rent increase was negotiated four years ago, so current students were not consulted. The JCR is displeased at the increase. We hope that in the future rent changes will be decided one year before the proposed implementation.”
Hertford also saw high rent increases. JCR president Will Hartshaw said he had negotiated the college down from a 10% increase over two years in real terms to the same increase over three years.

He was uncertain whether students felt this concession was enough and said, “I need to take this back to the JCR and get their opinions.”

At other colleges, however, students said they were happy with the way negotiations had progressed.

Negotiations progressed well at wealthy Magdalen College. According to JCR President Laurence Mills, rent was given top priority in the “JCR Agenda”, which was presented to the President, Home Bursar and the Deans.

“The conclusion of our negotiations with college meant that our rent has only gone up by 2.24% for the coming year. We will be working during this term and over the vac, and report back in Michaelmas. The changes that we recommend will be implemented from October 2010.”

“All in all, the college has been open to working with us in a constructive fashion. In addition to this, only having our rent go up by 2.24% in the next year is a huge bonus.”

The OCCI (Oxford Colleges’ Cost Index) anticipates that college costs will go up by 2.24% this year. However, the previous year’s figures (for 2007/08) were given as 3.91% last year, but have since been revised upwards to 5.92%. Given economics pressures, the figure for this year could also go up.

According to OUSU figures, many colleges run annual deficits of over £1 million per year.

Scientists at Oxford have discovered how the bumblebee flies contrary to the conventional laws of aerodynamics.

The study reveals that bumblebees rely on brute force to get off the ground. Fuelled by the high-energy nectar they consume, they flap their wings over 200 times a second.

This is a far more inefficient method of flight than that of most insects.

The team trained the insects and used smoke, a wind tunnel and high-speed cameras to observe in detail how real bumblebee wings work in free flight.

A newly discovered KGB document has revealed that a distinguished former civil servant masterminded a network of communist spies at Oxford.

Arthur Wynn, also known as “Agent Scott”married an Oxford student in 1938 and began to recruit agents during and after the war. His job was to identify young students who would become part of the British establishment to spy for the Russian government. He recruited dozens of young communists, but the exact number is unknown.

His existence was revealed in 1992 with the approval of the Russian intelligence services, but they refused to divulge his name until now.

The Times have said that the revelation of Wynn’s identity means that “one of the oddest mysteries in espionage history has finally been resolved.”

Actress Sienna Miller is to be offered the role of a blind Oxford University don in an upcoming independent film.

Shamim Sarif, the director of the film and a novelist, said it would be “fantastic” if Miller could play the role in “The Dreaming Spires”. Set in post-war Oxford, the film tells the story of a young student who falls in love with a blind, married English professor in her thirties.

The script is an adaptation of one of Sarif’s short stories. It is the first film by Sarif not to feature a lesbian love story. Filming is due to start later in the year.

The financial future of the Oxford University Students’ Union (OUSU) has been plunged into uncertainty after plans to restructure its funding was roundly rejected.

University officials and student representatives had toiled for months on how to shore up the organisation’s shaky finances, but their proposals were dismissed at a meeting of Oxford bursars this week.

The Working Party on OUSU funding are headed back to the drawing board following the snub from the Estates Bursars Committee (EBC).

The group began their review into OUSU’s financial structure late last year, amid concerns that the institution’s sources of income were inherently unstable.

As things stand, OUSU revenue is generated via a combination of ad hoc University grants, common room affiliation fees and profits from its commercial wing, Oxford Student Services Limited (OSSL).

There are major doubts however over the stability of these funding sources, forcing OUSU to restructure or face cutbacks in key services.

In response to the ongoing financial struggles, the Working Party on OUSU funding was set up by the Joint Committee of Council with Student Members (JCC). They proposed a new funding model, which brought colleges in as a fourth contributor to the OUSU budget.

The proposal was scrutinised by bursars at the EBC last Thursday. Although official feedback has not yet been released, it is believed that the model was strongly condemned, with some bursars labeling the reforms little more than “a sticking plaster.”

While the EBC was asked only to advise upon rather than accept or reject the proposal, it is very unlikely the JCC will be able pass the changes without their support

Asked to reflect on the future of the model, Secretary to the JCCSM, Gary Crocker, refused to comment until a formal statement from the EBC had been released.

“Once comments have been received from the EBC and any other consultative bodies the report will be reviewed and further consultation will take place,” he said.

“Until the consultation and review process is complete it would be unwise to speculate about future funding options and the finances at OUSU.”

OUSU President Lewis Iwu added that the JCCSM had taken great care to absorb feedback from students throughout the process.

“Consultation is important and that is why I have had several meetings with common room representatives to get constructive feedback,” he said.

The row over funding comes at an increasingly uncertain time for the Students’ Union, which is also facing a dramatic reorganisation to comply with the 2006 Charities Act – which comes into effect later this year.

Jason Keen, JCR President of St John’s College, said, “How this funding issue is resolved will be fundamental to the future of OUSU.

“We really are at a crossroads at the moment in terms of what we want our students union be, what it should do and how we should pay for it.”

He added that many of his fellow JCR and MCR colleagues were worried that they would end up having to foot the bill for the suggested contribution from colleges.

“The major concern at the moment is that this additional college rate would be passed straight on to common rooms, which could prompt a wave of disaffiliations,” he said.

The current proposed changes have been strongly criticised, with many fearing it could result in an essential stealth tax on students.

Among its fiercest critics is Ben Britton, MCR co-President of St Catherine’s College, who has created his own proposal as an alternative funding model.

“I, and several others, am pleased that JCCSM WG proposal has been opposed by EBC and hope that Conference of Colleges will follow suit,” he said.

“I remain very critical of the manner in which this model was constructed and that necessary consultation was hastily avoided.”

In light of the episode, some have claimed that to justify its funding model, OUSU needs to rethink its scope, level and purpose.

The OUSU Rep for Magdalen college, Tom Meakin welcomed this re-examination. He said, “I think the one great thing that can come out of this is that OUSU will have to more overtly justify its existence to JCRs. This will force people to go back to the drawing board and think about what they want from their student union. It will enable everyone who has an active role within the organisation be they JCR presidents, sabbatical officers or OUSU reps to take an active role in redefining what should be and what can be an organisation that caters for the needs of Oxford students.”

Nobel prize-winning poet Derek Walcott has dropped out of the race to become Oxford’s Professor of Poetry after being targeted by a vicious and systematic smear campaign.

The poet blamed his withdrawal on “low tactics” and “low and degrading attempt at character assassination”.

Female college heads and fellows across Oxford received anonymous envelopes containing allegations of sexual harassment made against the poet over twenty years ago. The hand-written envelopes, between 50 and 100 in number, contained a photocopied extract from The Lecherous Professor, a book examining incidents of sexual harassment on college campuses.

In the extract, a female student who Walcott had tutored at Harvard University alleged that the poet had sexually harassed her, asking to her to imagine making love to him, then graded her poorly in the class after she rejected his advances.

Walcott has refused to comment on the allegations, saying, “What happened twenty years ago I have never commented upon and have never given my side of what happened. That will continue to be the case.”

Harvard University officially reprimanded Walcott following the allegations. The Harvard Crimson, the University’s newspaper, reported at the time that Walcott did not deny the student’s testimony. His teaching style was “deliberately personal and intense,” he alleged.

The Crimson published a letter by the student containing an account of the conversation. The student claimed that, after she sent the letter, Walcott was “cold and distant”, showed “no concern for my education” and “did not fully evaluate my work as he did with other students of the class.”

“I do not want to get into a race for a post where it causes embarrassment to those who have chosen to support me for the role or to myself,” Walcott told the Evening Standard. “I already have a great many work commitments and while I was happy to be put forward for the post, if it has degenerated into a low and degrading attempt at character assassination, I do not want to be part of it.”

Professor Hermione Lee, a campaigner for Derek Walcott, has expressed her disgust at the smear campaign. “I am shocked and astonished that someone has been using these sorts of anonymous tactics,” she said. “Why are these tactics being used? It is a conceited campaign, to put things into an envelope with no name.”

“These allegations are from 25 years ago and we should have an argument in a proper manner. It’s a very complicated, ethical question and it should be properly debated.” She added, “You might ask yourself as a student body whether you wanted Byron or Shelley as a professor of poetry, neither of whom had personal lives free from criticism.”

The extract also described how, in 1995, the poet was accused of sexually harassing a student in a class he taught at Boston University. The student claimed that he had propositioned her. After she declined, he threatened to fail her and refused to produce her play. She later pressed for compensation and punitive damages.

Lee expressed concern that the letters may have been sent by Walcott’s competitors. “I can only assume that they were sent by Ruth Padel’s campaigners. I would like to disassociate myself from such behaviour.”
She added, “If it did not emanate from her, she should publicly disassociate herself from it.”

Professor Pedro Ferreira, Ruth Padel’s campaigner, emphasized that the smears had nothing to do with Padel’s campaign. “I haven’t heard anything about this. I know and have heard of the book, but I haven’t heard that the book has been sent out to people.”

He added, “I know there are people who are angry about this but I completely deny Ruth Padel’s involvement with such a campaign. We have nothing to do with this and we condemn it.”

The editors of Cherwell also received the extracts along with hand-written notes. One read, “I really think Hermione Lee is mad to try to bring this guy in. What say you? Sandra + Jane.”

Authors around the world received anonymous notes from a “group of women students at Oxford University” requesting that a letter be written to The Guardian and the University Press Office in objection to Walcott’s nomination.

Walcott’s withdrawal leaves only two poets left in the race for the post, Ruth Padel and Arvind Krishna Mehrotra. Major literary figures had backed Walcott’s application, including poet Jenny Joseph, and professor Hermione Lee, and he was seen as the front-runner for the post.

Rival poet Ruth Padel said that she is “shocked by Walcott’s withdrawal, and very sad”.

Oxford University have refused to postpone the election, due to take place this Saturday, despite claims that voters are now deprived of a meaningful choice. All Oxford graduates are eligible to vote.

Professor Peter MacDonald, of Christ Church College, told the Guardian newspaper that the University should delay the election, arguing, “Several eminent people who would not have stood against someone of Walcott’s stature would certainly have felt up to public comparison with Ruth Padel.”

MacDonald added, “A professor is not needed before the autumn. The University of Oxford should not allow the poetry chair to be cheapened in this way.”

Hermione Lee suggested that “representations might be made to the Oxford Elections Office to postpone the election.”

However, the University said on Wednesday that the election would continue to go ahead on the 16th May. A spokesperson said, “We are disappointed that one of the candidates for this year’s professor of poetry elections has pulled out of the contest at such a late stage. We hope voters will still attend on election day on Saturday.”