“Labour Minister gives offspring an unfair advantage in applying to top university? Surely not!” Or so was the cry from one indignant party at the news that Geoff Hoon has paid £3,000 to give his daughter a better chance of succeeding in her Oxbridge application.

What’s this? A parent paying to ensure their child’s success in life? A parent who wants their child to get ahead and will pay to see this happen?

As a Labour minister, Hoon’s actions are indefensible. He cannot hypocritically urge parents to resist paying for their children’s education and then disregard this himself. But is he the one truly at fault here?

If such such tactics did not work with the prestigious universities, they would not be so popular.

Every year, more and more students arrive at Oxford on the back on arduous coaching, which fails to inculcate any sort of passion or aptitude for their subject, merely an obsession with the fact that they have finally reached Oxford.

It would be laughable if it were not so disgraceful. The depressing truth, however, is that this is now the requirement to succeed at Oxford. The students coached to affect interest and flair for their subject are often the only ones capable of coping with the tortuous interview process and the relentless workload that follows.

The blame for the profileration of these courses does not lie with the parents who pay for them, such as Hoon. It lies with the University that exploits them by ensuring that it is the only way to survive an undergraduate course here.

Rewards for good results in Mods and Prelims shouldn’t just be equal: they shouldn’t even exist. That colleges would pay for students to work harder sounds plausible enough, if a little mercenary, but it’s just not that simple. Many people may find themselves unable to get firsts however hard they work, while others coast by into the arms of their Scholar’s Gown. It isn’t paying people to work harder, but paying people for being clever.

If there’s a place people need money thrown at them for being intelligent, it isn’t Oxford. The egos of ‘Scholars’ scarcely need more massaging, and the whole farce just contributes to the immense pressure of education at Oxford. When it comes to room allocations, the problems are no better. It becomes, in the words of one student, a ‘physical symbol’ of their failure. The whole thing reeks of snobbery and caste-era labelling.

The phenomenon seems all the more strange given that the importance of prelims and mods for scholarship money is wildly irrelevant to their importance in Oxford degrees. The marks don’t count towards finals, many papers aren’t double-marked to produce consistent results, and many tutors tell their students not to worry about the exams. It should come as something of a surprise when students find hundreds of pounds hinge on their performance.

The fact that different colleges pay vastly different sums is almost irrelevant in this context, but it again demonstrates the inequities of the collegiate system. Co-curricular standards such as rent, food, bursaries, library facilities, teaching, and possession of a deer park, are subject to the whims and wealth of the college. The continued existence of such a system is manifestly unfair, especially for the many students who make the reasonable choice of an Open Application.

It may feel good to receive a cheque for three hundred pounds from your College, but wouldn’t that money be better spent elsewhere? The lack of outrage that students express at the disparities between colleges is something we wouldn’t be too loathe to forsake. The money could go to discounting rent. A better idea would be to fund scholarships for those who find it hard to pay their way at university. Surely this would be a better way for colleges to improve their position on the Norrington Table: using scholarships to make sure bright applicants aren’t put off by the social snobbery and high cost of living that comes with this university.

What are the main duties of the two Proctors?

Proctors have several roles. They take part in the governance of the University. They are ex officio members of the governing Council and are entitled to attend meetings of any statutory university body, and to request any information from them. They also oversee University Examinations. They ensure that exams are conducted properly and have discretion to approve special arrangements for individual candidates (e.g. to take account of disability or ill-health). They are responsible for dealing with complaints about university matters, acting something like internal ‘ombudsmen’. Complaints can be brought to them by students and staff members, and they have wide powers to investigate and provide redress. They also deal with student discipline and attend many ceremonial functions.

How are the Proctors appointed?

The Council of the University agrees a cycle to allow all the colleges to take it in turns to nominate the Proctors. Each year, two colleges elect a Proctor and one college elects the Assessor. When a college’s turn comes round, it elects from its Governing Body on the Wednesday of 8th Week of Hilary Term, often selecting one of their teaching Fellows. The person elected takes up office on the Wednesday of 9th Week of Hilary Term in the following year, when an admission ceremony is held to swear in the new office-holders.

Has the role changed much throughout the University’s history?

Yes – but the Proctors have been around for over 750 years! The role originated in the early days of the University when there was friction between people from the North of England and people from the South. Each side appointed a Master of Arts to represent their interests and the Proctorial system developed from there. It is interesting to see that the original role was to do with sorting out disputes and imposing discipline. The Proctors’ role has developed over the years to suit the changing needs of a changing University. Change comes about partly because of internal reforms and partly because of external pressures (e.g. new legal requirements).

Are Proctors responsible for college discipline?

Some misconduct will relate just to college matters (e.g. setting off fire extinguishers in college accommodation), and these are dealt with by the student’s own college. Other misconduct will relate just to university matters (e.g. plagiarism or other cheating in a University Examination), and these are dealt with by the Proctors on the University’s behalf. There is a grey area in the middle (e.g. significant misuse of IT facilities involving both college and university systems), and in these cases the Proctors will agree with the college Deans concerned the fairest way to take disciplinary proceedings forward.

Which disciplinary cases are referred to the Proctors?

Disciplinary cases start with a formal investigation of concerns brought to the Proctors’ attention (e.g. by a Chairman of Examiners). Other, straightforward, cases result from reports made to the Proctors (e.g. by their Proctors’ Officers about student misbehaviour after examinations). They are dealt with either by the Proctors or by the Student Disciplinary Panel. The most serious cases are referred to the Student Disciplinary Panel which holds an independent tribunal, while the Proctors deal with the less serious cases. Students have full rights to answer the charges, bring evidence and call witnesses.

What disciplinary measures are used by the University?

The Proctors can impose a fine and/or damages up to £100 and issue a written warning about the student’s future behaviour. The Student Disciplinary Panel, however, can impose unlimited fines/damages, can rusticate and expel, and in the case of examination-related offences can order penalties such as marks reduction, failure in a paper or failure in the entire examination. The Proctors also have other powers relating to suspension of students who are misusing university premises, and those involved in criminal proceedings.

What are the key problems facing the economy?

The immediate problem is a shortage of credit. Private saving in Britain has been low for many years and therefore the economy has been dependent on capital inflows from abroad. At the moment such funding is not forthcoming. Investors that have access to cash are unwilling to lend it because of fears over the solvency of potential borrowers, partly because the full extent of losses from housing and equity market declines is unclear, and partly because the prospect of a protracted recession raises the possibility that many borrowers will default on loans. The symptoms of recession, including weak consumer spending and rising unemployment, can be traced to a lack of demand arising from constraints on the availability of credit.

Is the government to blame for the predicament?

No. At base, the problems affecting the global economy result from a period of excessive lending that saw good money invested in bad projects that were never likely to deliver a return. The most famous example of this occurred in the US subprime mortgage market, and the fall out has been propagated internationally via globalized financial markets. The UK government could have pushed for stricter international regulation of lending ten years ago, but the government is not directly responsible for the predicament.

Whose policies, if any, are likely to be effective?

The steps taken by the government will stabilize the British banking system and lay the foundations for a return to positive economic growth in the medium-term. Many other countries, such as Germany and the USA, have also adopted fiscal stimulus approaches. The tax cuts and increases in spending are likely to be a useful injections of cash into an economic environment where many people are feeling worse off. Although the government has been criticised on the grounds that more spending will increase government debt, our national debt levels remain lower than many other G8 nations.

What’s the government’s plan for the crisis?

A fiscal stimulus. The government has agreed to take out loans using its own preferential credit lines and make the funds available to banks in the hope that banks will then pass on the money to consumers and businesses in the form of loans. There is also a much smaller package of tax cuts and government spending increases intended to boost incomes in the economy at a time when many face tight budgets.

What do the Conservatives propose?

The Conservative Party have advocated a National Loan Guarantee Scheme whereby the repayment of loans to businesses would be guaranteed in the event those businesses go bankrupt. The idea is that the scheme takes some of the risk out of lending and therefore induces banks to lend money to firms, who then feel confident to spend on hiring, investment and the like, which then supports expenditure and income in other parts of the economy.

Is there an end in sight?

The banks now have access to funds. What they require is profitable lending opportunities, but such opportunities are hard to come by at the moment. Most sectors are performing badly because demand is weak. Even when banks resume something approaching normal terms of lending there are lots of UK consumers with large debts to repay after a decade of rapid growth in borrowing, so demand will remain weak throughout 2009.

John-Mark Philo

LGBT Rep, Oriel

‘Jews are a menace to nature’;
‘Black people are as great a threat as rainforest destruction’

No British newspaper would publish these headlines – they would be immediately condemned as anti-Semitic and racist. Why did they think it was all right to feature similar claims about gay people? In the Daily Mail we read “Homosexuality is as great a threat as rainforest destruction” and in The Telegraph “Pope says humanity needs ‘saving’ from homosexuality” (23rd December). BBC radio ran the story without critical voices. It was a masterly piece of media agenda setting in the context of the debate over gay marriage. The article was released during a media dry spell and the news angle was one designed to grab attention.

Now the story gets interesting, because this isn’t what the Pope actually said. In his end of year address to the Curia, he doesn’t even mention the word homosexuality. He says that the Church must ‘protect Man against the destruction of himself’ and that marriage is ‘a sacrament of creation’ exclusively ‘between man and wife’. These rather vague formulations are then drawn to the attention of the media and spun slightly so that the anti-gay message now becomes crystal clear. The story goes out through a news agency and the mass media pick it up.

So who is responsible for this process? Most likely a Vatican official with the tacit approval of the Pope. If Il Papa had objected to the way his words were used, then he could have issued a denial. He didn’t.

In fact, rather shifty statements have been emerging from the Vatican for some time attacking sexualities of which the Church does not officially approve. A number of newspapers reported that in October last year an ‘unnamed’ Vatican official had described homosexuality as ‘a deviation, an irregularity, a wound’.

So the Pope, in a sense, has it both ways. He makes a slightly obscure, unengaging speech on marriage and the rainforests including lengthy passages on pneumatology and the ‘hovering creator’. When challenged, his defenders can say it’s the newspapers that have made a drama of it and really it was a commentary on gender theory.

The media shouldn’t fall for these cheap tricks, but should be ready to challenge the claims of old Vatican homophobes and their spin doctors.

Patrick Milner

Newman Society President

How embarrassing. Yet another scandalous and unnecessary statement that has exposed the shortcomings and incompetencies of a worldwide organisation. I am of course referring to the BBC’s coverage of the Holy Father’s Address to the Roman Curia. It may seem unfair to single out one individual media body, but the BBC really must take the first prize in the fictional non-news category. The BBC website claimed that “Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction”. This sentence is nothing more than outright lie; he never even mentioned homosexuality.

Now, I’m all for using one’s own initiative in order to save time and unnecessary work, but as the world’s largest broadcaster that employs 28,500 people in the UK alone, the only conclusions that we can draw from this is that either no one from the BBC read the actual address, or that someone has deliberately distorted the truth for a sensationalist article. I’ll say it again: how embarrassing.

Now to what the Holy Father actually said. The Pope’s annual address to the Roman Curia is a reflection on the major Papal events of the last year. In it, he mentions his travels to the USA and France, the Synod of Bishops and World Youth Day which was held in Sydney. He then discussed World Youth Day and the environment in relation to the Holy Spirit. It was in this context that he talked about how God’s plan for creation encompasses both stewardship of the planet and the expression of human sexual relations within marriage. He called for an ecology of Man.

Yes, I’ll say it, the Pope believes in sanctity of Marriage between Man and Woman. He firmly believes that God created Man and Woman for love, and has called them to an intimate communion of love in Marriage. It’s quite simple and he is unafraid to say it. The Church does not recognise civil partnerships as having the status of marriage and it does not agree that the best environment in which to bring up a child is with same sex parents. Shock horror, the Pope is Catholic. What next? Jesus was a Jew?

In future, perhaps the BBC should get their facts right and then try and write something which is vaguely interesting; neither of which have they managed to do on this occasion.