If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, is it a duck? Yes. So if there is something that looks like a barrier to applying to Oxford, and seems to act like a barrier to applying to Oxford, is it a barrier? Not always. The £10 application fee for undergraduate admissions quacks because it is a barrier. But we should be wary of throwing out babies out with the bath water. Or, to hideously combine these already out of control metaphors, rubber ducks with the bath water. There are some extra processes built in to applying to Oxford, like aptitude tests and interviews, that look like a barrier to applying, seem to act like a barrier to applying, but aren’t a barrier to applying. So why don’t they quack?The short answer is that some perceived barriers benefit applicants: they allow Oxford to gain a much greater understanding of a student’s potential, so the University can confidently choose the very best from the brightest. Working out who is really, really good, rather than just really good, when everyone who applies has perfect grades and a treasure chest of extra curricular achievements, is a challenge to say the least. Few universities benefit from this challenge. Oxford needs different admission processes to meet this challenge.By barriers, in the context of admissions, I mean things that block the progress of students of greatest potential, whatever their background. For Oxford to admit the best from the brightest, it must invest in extra stages to get rounded pictures of applicants. After all, academic potential cannot be accurately represented by a series of past achievements printed on a piece of paper. Therefore the University invests more time and energy than other higher education bodies rigorously interviewing applicants. The interviews allow tutors to stretch potential students’ thinking, to analyse their motivations, and to assess whether they will respond successfully to tutorial teaching. Candidates will not receive adequate care and attention from tutors if there are ten people being interviewed per place. To ensure tutors can conduct meaningful interviews, aptitude tests are used in some subjects to help short-list candidates to approximately three per place during interviews. This also prevents students with no chance of getting an offer wasting time and money coming to Oxford. This guarantees that the University admits the very best from its talented pool of applicants.Charging £10 to apply to Oxford quacks, waddles and swims like a duck, and is one that should be shot. The fee is a barrier that discourages students from applying to Oxford, because they see the application as a costly gamble. By charging students to apply, this university encourages a false assumption that life here is more expensive than everywhere else. Considering the relatively small sums it raises, compared to the millions the University invests every year into its access work and bursaries, there is no reason why the University should undermine its good work on outreach by demanding that prospective applicants buy the opportunity to be considered by Oxford.It is inevitable that this fee will go – Oxford is the last remaining University to charge for this – but its demise is also desirable. I believe applications will increase as more talented students apply speculatively; after all, it won’t cost them anything to do so. This will help our work widening access and making sure Oxford University admits the best students, whatever their school, and whatever their background.
James Lamming is the Vice President of OUSU.

Enter the elephant, a towering colossus, gigantic in strength, lording over the beasts of the forest. Enter his opponent: the bee, a piddling nonentity. The expression ‘squashed like a bug’ was devised for such moments. Yet Lucy King, a DPhil student from Oxford University, has shown that in the combat between elephant and bee, it is the latter which will claim the laurels. The bee is our biblical David. His insectile slingshot? His ‘buzz’.Oxford researchers made this groundbreaking discovery after installing hidden loudspeakers in trees where elephants regularly find shade. They played either buzzing sounds recorded at beehives or a control sound of white noise. While the white noise affected only under a third of elephants, within just eighty seconds of implementing the buzzing noises as much as eighty four percent of the elephant families had fled, many at a run. How do we explain the elephant’s terrifying fear of bees? Although elephants cannot be stung through their thick hides, the water around their eyes is vulnerable to stings, as is the sensitive inside of their trunks. The age old aphorism raises its trunk again: the elephant never forgets, so once stung, he will never risk battle with the bee again. But why are researchers wasting their time driving off elephants with imitation bees, if not for the comedy value? How can we benefit through this unveiling of the elephant’s Achilles Heel? Although, in Africa, elephants are a major asset, they also regularly embark on crop raids on local farms, and the economic damage caused to small-scale farmers can be crippling. Meanwhile, farmers, often resort to the shooting, spearing or poisoning of elephants. There is thus a real urgency in finding a practical solution. It is here that Lucy King, Oxford and the bees step in. Bees may just provide the perfect low cost deterrent method and a successful step towards achieving peaceful human-elephant relations. Thank science for that.
by Katie Duval

One month from today, on Saturday 29th March 2008, Oxford take on Cambridge at Craven Cottage in the 124th Varsity Match. Coached by ex-Arsenal and England defender Martin Keown, Oxford are seeking to avenge two successive Varsity defeats, and to end their season on a high after regional playoff defeat at Exeter on Tuesday ended their promotion hopes, despite the Blues in fact winning their league with a heroic victory over title favourites Worcester. The stakes, as always, are high, as the build-up begins to the biggest date in the Oxford footballing calendar. The Varsity Match itself is one of the oldest regular fixtures in world football, having taken place every year since 1873 (with breaks for the First and Second World Wars). It has been played at some of football’s most prestigious venues, including Stamford Bridge, Highbury, White Hart Lane and even at Wembley – as well as at The Oval and The Queen’s Club. Statistically, it remains a tight affair, Oxford having notched up 48 wins to Cambridge’s 47, and having scored 193 goals to their 192. The last two years have seen defeats for Oxford, as Cambridge narrowly triumphed 1-0 in 2006 and then won on penalties last year after the game finished 1-1. Yet despite this impressive heritage, history only means so much. It is this year, this match, this coming 90minutes that is crucial to these players. Striker Alex Toogood was Oxford’s scorer last year, and remembers the experience as blowing him away. ‘It was absolutely amazing – the next five minutes were incredible, it was just like ‘wow’.’ Yet despite this euphoria, Toogood’s main feeling was one of ‘massive relief’, his goal coming as an equaliser to cancel out Cambridge’s early lead. The immense pressure to perform that is heaped upon the players is all too apparent; with so many friends and family coming to watch, as well as thousands of fans who judge players purely on that one performance, the stress involved is considerable. It seems this year that the emphasis upon the Varsity as a season-defining game is being discouraged in the Blues camp. As Toogood says, ‘the main thing is to treat it like any other game, and to enjoy it – we play football to enjoy ourselves, and we’ll play better if we’re enjoying it.’ Last season the Blues had a terrific year, yet were judged by many upon one defeat on penalties. This clearly annoys a lot of players, especially with the fear that it could happen again: as with last year, the Blues have had a great season, winning the BUSA Midlands Conference 1A title at the first attempt after promotion. It would be aggravating to see them judged by many as failures should they again lose in a oneoff game. In his second crack at the Varsity, Toogood is determined to relish the experience. ‘Last year I didn’t enjoy it, because we were all so focused and took it so seriously – my whole family and all my friends were there but I was barely able to look up.’ This time round, the lightning-fast Worcester hit-man is placing much more importance upon appreciating the occasion, and upon the Blues playing good football, working on the base they have built over the season under Keown. ‘He [Keown] has brought a lot of new ideas, got us playing a better style, keeping the ball on the ground and actually passing it around, playing nice football. If we play like we usually do we can easily win.’ This seems like a healthy attitude to take to such a pressured game. Despite so many supporters demanding victory at all costs, the Blues will do far better playing their own stylish brand of football that has brought them success than trying to adapt specially for Cambridge. The current Blues goalkeeper and OUAFC Sabbatical Officer, Nik Baker, is the most experienced of the squad when it comes to the Varsity game, having appeared in it in each of the last three seasons. Despite being ineligible this time round, his experience in the dressing game will surely be crucial to any success. When asked about the pressure surrounding the game, he too saw it as an important issue, but argued that the Blues are used to that kind of situation. ‘With the title run-in, all of our last three games have been must-win matches. We’re as well prepared as we can be, it shouldn’t come as a shock.’ Yet Baker acknowledged that a Varsity game can be a defining moment for any individual – you never know quite how someone will react until they run out on that pitch. ‘It’s just that kind of occasion: some rise to it, some freeze. It’s a real test of character.’ Baker certainly seems to have been one of those to have risen to the occasion. He made his Varsity debut in 2005 as a fresher at Keble, and was man-of-the-match, making a crucial penalty save as Oxford went on to win 1-0. Last year he added further to this reputation, making a series of superb second-half saves before going on to save the first three Cambridge penalties in the shootout. As a result, he knows what he’s talking about when he says that the game is a special experience. ‘It’s bad to define a season by the Varsity match, but it’s the one where everyone’s parents and friends make the effort, and it’s on a big ground. During the season we play in front of fifty or so people – at the Varsity it’s thousands. Everyone will make a snap judgement on that game, so you want to give the best possible account of yourself. It’s a good challenge!’ The Blues are trying to avoid too much special preparation for the game, putting confidence in their ability to win whilst playing their own game. Cambridge will be carefully watched over the next few weeks, but there will be no Allardyceesque ‘war room’ mentality down at Iffley Road. Small details are important, such as arriving early at Craven Cottage and looking round the pitch in mental preparation for seeing it again a few hours later – the only minor difference being the new presence of thousands of screaming fans on all sides. Nothing will be left to chance. Set-pieces will be carefully rehearsed, both attacking and defending, as it is often the small details that are forgotten quickest in the adrenaline-fuelled blur that is the game itself – a potentially crucial difference in a match that is so often decided by a single goal. As Baker says, when it comes to the Varsity, ‘the preparation just has to be that much more thorough’. There is also the ‘Keown Factor’. It was an amazing coup for Oxford to land Martin Keown as coach this season, arising from his desire to gain experience in his hometown whilst gaining his Uefa Coaching Badges. Having made 337 appearances for Arsenal and 594 professional appearances overall, gaining three Premier League titles, three FA Cup winner’s medals and 43 England caps in the process, Keown’s experience and leadership is an invaluable asset for the Blues. As keeper Baker simply states: ‘when he talks, people listen.’ With a reputation as one of the toughest defenders in football, it is easy to understand why, yet Keown’s off-field persona is extremely calm – there is no ‘hairdryer’ in the Oxford dressing room. He brings a huge amount to the team, from the way he demands high-quality, attractive passing football to his wealth of experience and tactical nous that can be called upon on critical occasions – such as the Varsity. As Baker tells us, Keown is able to get the absolute maximum out of his players, ‘demanding that much more from people because of what he’s achieved’; Toogood agrees, saying that ‘having him on the sidelines really makes people put in an effort!’ Come the 29th of March, Keown’s inspiring presence may be a crucial factor when the going gets tough. This week’s loss to Exeter will surely have hurt the Blues. Despite winning their league, promotion to a higher division rested on a playoff system; Exeter now go on to face Leeds in an inter-regional final, whilst Oxford remain where they are. Yet such a defeat has two silver linings: firstly, it means less travelling for a Blues team that already deals with huge timecommitments whilst balancing Oxford degrees, the perennial problem of all top-level Oxford sportsmen. Secondly (and more excitingly), it gives the Blues a massive incentive to end the year on a high by thrashing the Tabs. Tickets for the game can be purchased on the Fulham FC website, www.fulhamfc.com/tickets, with special deals for OUAFC members. Anyone who has been to one of these games before will know what a special and exciting occasion it is for players and fans alike, and what a great day out it can be. With the boat race on the same day, and Craven Cottage perfectly situated on the River Thames, there really is no excuse not to be there. When all is said and done, one fact remains: as Baker tells us, ‘this is a game we really, really want to win.’by George Kynaston

You know a Tim Burton film as soon as you see it. The gothic undertones of all his work seep onto the screen to the point of saturating it with darkness. Because of this, many film lovers seem to view Burton as some kind of creative genius. Nothing could be further from the truth: that he is a one-dimensional director who lacks the ability, or courage, to move out of his comfort zone and bathe his films in some much needed light.Ok, so Burton does have the capability to string a shot sequence together in a coherent narrative, but so does Guy Ritchie, and he made Swept Away. Aside from that, his films, and the reputation he has somehow managed to build, rely on two basic prerequisites: firstly that his cinematographer brings his vision to the screen in a veil of shade, and secondly that there is an undercurrent of evil pervading the story. Burton would not, and will never, take on a film if he doesn’t believe he can introduce these aspects.Certainly every director is entitled to a subjective style, but Burton’s constant repetition is simply boring. Anyone could have predicted what Sweeney Todd would look like: gratuitous violence, grimy, gloomy, and blood tainted with an abrasive, unreal redness, because that makes it ‘edgy and imaginative’. Because of this predictability, a story that has real malice lacked any on screen, and you can say the same about any of his projects. Of course, amongst all the perennials of a Burton film, you can’t forget his ever-present centrepiece, Johnny Depp.Depp is by no means a bad actor, although vastly overrated, but he always models his characters on public figures: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory might as well have listed Michael Jackson in the starring role, for instance. So you have the combination of Burton continually repeating himself, and Depp borrowing the persona and idiosyncrasies of other people for every film. It doesn’t make for cutting edge entertainment.Unfortunately the other mainstay of Burton’s travelling band, also his spouse, Helena Bonham-Carter, does not exactly turn in groundbreaking performances either. Admittedly, she has fantastic breasts, but there’s only so far her buxom can carry a film (although it’s quite a distance). And what’s worse, Burton refuses to admit that his repeated employment of her has anything to do with the fact she’s his wife. Does he think we’ll put it down to coincidence?The truth about Burton is that he lacks range. He’s not terrible at what he does, but after seeing essentially the same film (and cast) nearly 20 times, you sort of wish he’d try something, just anything, a bit differently.
By Ben Williams

 Union Returning Officer resigns amid complaints of intimidation and "interrogation-style knifing sessions"Union Returning Officer Cameron Penny resigned on Wednesday amidst allegations that he intimidated candidates in today’s elections, a claim he denies. Four candidates from Christ Church have complained of feeling intimidated and excluded by his actions,  prompting ex-President James Wise to submit a letter of complaint to Standing Committee.
In a statement of resignation to Union President Emily Partington, Penny said, “I stand by every action I have taken as the Returning Officer, and I regret nothing that I have said or done in discharging my obligations. “I thank you, and the rest of Standing Committee for the support you have given me at difficult times during the course of this term.”The third-year Oriel student also told Cherwell, “The letter and the events of the past week have had no bearing on my decision to resign.”The candidates, who say they are running to draw attention to what they describe as the exclusive and insular nature of Union politics, feel that they were the victims of hostile and arrogant behaviour on the part of Penny and his deputies during mandatory interviews about their manifestos.In his letter submitted to Standing committee on Monday, Wise claimed that the candidates were subjected to “interrogation-style knifing sessions,” and argued that such conduct on behalf of Union officials could alienate future candidates.The Christ Church students said that they felt the arrangement of the room where the interviews were held was “deliberately designed to intimidate.” They were permitted to have an impartial representative accompany them, and were required to sit fifteen feet away from the panel of electoral officials conducting the interviews. They were only allowed to stand up or sit down with Penny’s express permission. Rich Gowland, one of aggrieved candidates, said, “Cameron Penny set it up like an interrogation.”Chris Hughes, who has nominated for Secretary’s Committee, said “If I hadn’t had James [Wise] in there with me, I would have just walked away.” Hughes also said he thought that the interview was being recorded, despite the fact that he had not given his consent.Penny defended this, arguing that he was required to record conversations and that recordings were available on request.Mike Campbell, another candidate, said that he felt that he and the others were being singled out because of their overtly ‘anti-hack’ stance. All four said they felt that, for an outsider, the whole electoral process is “deliberately complex and scary”. It is the duty of the Returning Officer to amend manifestos so that they are both accurate and in accordance with Union rules. However, these candidates felt that Penny took this obligation to extremes, even asking Chris Hughes for substantive proof that he had served as one of Christ Church’s Entz Reps.  The candidates felt this question was “pedantic and facetious” as well as “snide and belittling.”Penny denied that any individual candidate or group of candidates was singled out, stating that “Every candidate is treated exactly the same and the Christ Church students’ “grilling”, as it were, was a lot less gruelling than many of the other candidates’ because they had less on their manifestos.”All four candidates, in compliance with the Union Standing Orders, were contacted by the Returning Officer and his deputy Alex Priest to inform them that their manifestos would shortly be displayed at the Union.  The candidates said that they were called repeatedly at 5.30am; Gowland stated he received ten missed calls in two minutes before picking up. Penny defended the timing of the calls on the basis that he had worked through the night to process the manifestos and that “every other candidate was called at the same time.” “The complaints that are being made are done so, in my view, with malicious intent,” Penny continued.
Union President Emily Partington declined to comment. by Caroline Crampton and Oscar Cox Jensen

For many of us (second year lawyers in particular) last term was punctuated by corporate events in which representatives of the leading firms came to aid the decision of precisely to whom we should be selling our souls.The flyers which inundated our pigeon holes received a mixed reception. The firms can’t have been too mystified to discover that those which offered us the perfect opportunity to attend glamorous drinks parties at the Randolph and long lunches at Brown’s were actually oversubscribed, whereas the dryer sounding talks were apparently not. We can’t be said to be doing much to alter the image that students are to be won over on superficial grounds!However, we must endeavour not to conform to all student stereotypes. Instead, we must present ourselves as mature, professional ,and socially adept, and must be memorable for the right reasons. Application forms, which are so readily available (although not always accessible), do not appear to be sufficient, nor are many of the coveted firms relying solely on interviews. Increasingly, assessment takes the form of an open day, where one is invited to spend an entire day being tested relentlessly in multiple situations under a variety of guises. The conscientious applicant will be aware that these are not merely ‘informal drinks’, providing the opportunity to chat with the partners and trainees, but constitute a further opportunity for the firms to scrutinise our behaviour and ascertain how we respond to a long day of rigorous assessment.   Naturally, this will be useful to them, as they are looking to recruit people who are capable of maintaining a chirpy demeanour after a challenging day. However, the interview process is unusually stressful as there is the added component of being in an unknown, often intimidating environment, which would be absent from normal working life. The firms ought to take this into account when testing our social skills, which will clearly be completed after the intensive procedures involved in the days.Another area where the firms demonstrate their great expectations is the testing of commercial awareness. We are told that it will suffice to have the level of knowledge of what is going on in the business world that may be obtained through religiously poring over the Financial Times. After all, can we really be expected to have the same degree of commercial prowess as current trainees?It would seem that for some partners the answer to that question is ‘Yes’, even though it is not clear how most people could possibly have developed such awareness whilst ticking all the other boxes in terms of results and extra curricular activities.  And so, it could appear that all work and no play could lead to unemployment, but that depends upon your definition of ‘work’!
Laura McPhee is Social Secretary of the Middle Temple Society. 

3/5 ‘Here comes a film, and if it already looks a bit weird, hang in there, because anyone can see it… It’s a comedy, and harmless as such… Just a cosy time. So why not poke fun at artsy-fartsy culture?’ From the opening voiceover of The Boss of It All (Direktøren for Det Hele) it is clear that this is no normal office comedy. This Danish art film by Lars von Trier features Kristoffer, a pretentious out-of-work actor who lands a job playing the fictitious head of an IT firm. The real owner, Ravn, has for years deferred all tricky decisions to ‘the boss of it all,’ but when he tries to sell the firm on to some suspicious Icelanders they will only deal with the real thing. So Kristoffer, equipped with nothing but his limitless ability to overact, must satisfy both the Icelanders and his eccentric ‘employees’ that he really is the boss of it all, and cope with the perpetually irritating Ravn.The film is shot entirely using the automavision process, in which the camera is placed in the best fixed position and the filming controlled by computer. The effect is of uneven, disconnected shots, often pointing in slightly the wrong place and cutting out half a head, for example, or leaving a face obscured. The shots are too short for the audience to get comfortable, and give the impression of CCTV footage. Yet despite the distancing effect (also caused by weird voiceovers), one ends up rooting for Kristoffer, as he evolves from an unbearable and absurd thesp to something resembling human. In drawing attention to the actor, and the process of keeping a role alive, the film may well be making a point about cinema in general, though what this is exactly is hard to tell. More engaging is the gently surreal drama that springs up between the characters. The Boss of It All even manages to be funny some of the time, though its unusual brand of Danish humour will not appeal to everyone.By Elizabeth Bennet

Filth bouncers have been accused of violence against students for the second time in two weeks, after a first year Christ Church student claimed he was roughly handled and bruised by security staff.The first incident occured on 8 February. The student, who wishes to remain anonymous, claims to have attempted to walk straight into the club with a group of friends, at which point a bouncer grabbed him by the neck and pushed him backwards. He was sent to the back of the queue, but on reaching the front he claims to have been assaulted by the bouncer. The student said, “The bouncer grabbed me and then quite deliberately moved his hand to hit me on the cheek.”He claims then to have complained to a second bouncer, who said, “Get out of here you slimy shit.”
The student said, “Maybe I asked for it the first time by attempting to walk straight into the club, but I then queued up, and when I spoke to the bouncer I was completely peaceful.” Although not badly injured, the student suffered light bruising the day after the incident. He chose not to complain to the manager.He admitted that he had been drinking but said, “I was by no means out of control. I had been to a restaurant with a group of friends and so we were all just in high spirits; we were ‘restaurant drunk.’“I think it’s really important that something should be done about this, as bouncers should be protecting people in the club and should not be allowed to abuse students for no reason.”
A week later, on 13 February, another student was involved in a similar incident. The fresher, also from Christ Church, claimed,  “The bouncer told me to leave; he then grabbed me and shoved me out of the club, slamming the door in my face.” The student waited until the end of the night to complain to the manager but says she was denied the chance.Last week Cherwell reported how a first year from Brasenose was left with a bloody nose after allegedly being hit by a bouncer outside Filth.However Stuart Kerley, the owner of Filth, claimed to be “unaware” of the incidents involving Christ Church students.He said, “Normally incidents occur when the students act like dicks; they nick stuff and they repeatedly try to come back into the club after being asked to leave. We are just doing our job in the way that the police and the Council say we should.”He added, “The majority of our clients are students and so it’s in our interests not to piss them off, but a lot of them do need to grow up and realise that just because they are students, this does not give them the right to act however they please.”by Sian Cox-Brooker

It saddened me to read the recent editorial, ‘Idea Idle’, as I feel entrepreneurship needs to be encouraged and not belittled.The Delboy model of enterprise is an unfair stereotype. Entrepreneurship is a rewarding though challenging career. The entrepreneurs I know are fixing real world problems, not ‘scamming pensioners and dodging taxes.’ Moreover, entrepreneurship has been shown to be an incredibly powerful way to institute social change and not a ‘blissful western, capitalist belief that good can be achieved by seeking a profit.’ Our two most recent speakers, John Bird and Sir Tom Hunter, show two very different and incredibly successful models of change. John Bird created the revolutionary social enterprise, The Big Issue, which has enabled and supported homeless people in getting themselves out of poverty. Sir Tom Hunter, on the other hand, made his fortune through retail, and plans to invest £1 billion in venture philanthropy. By using the rigorous methods of venture capitalists to ensure progress, Sir Tom hopes to improve education and aid third world development.Entrepreneurs care more about making a difference than making a profit. Yes, money is a huge motivation to work, both in large corporations where shareholders demand returns, and in start-ups where lack of money spells death of the project. But the difference for entrepreneurs is that the project is all important: the entrepreneurs I’ve met are driven by the desire to see their idea or vision actualised, whilst profit is seen more as a way of keeping tally of success.

So why do we run Idea Idol? I believe that it is really important that students at Oxford ask themselves, ‘Could I be an entrepreneur?’ Far too many graduates are lured by the money and lifestyle associated with comfortable graduate jobs such as banking and consultancy. The pay is good, but a banker is not going to fix the problems they themselves see as facing society or consumers, whereas entrepreneurs go out and do something about it. Oxford Entrepreneurs (OE) exists to support and encourage emerging entrepreneurs from Oxford. Our successes include five fully-funded start-ups, from Bright Green, who work in ethical recruiting, to Groupspaces, who help clubs and societies manage their members. The steps in setting up an enterprise are relatively straight-forward, but such steps can be incredibly difficult to take. OE tries to make the process a little easier, helping its members build up the momentum they need to run their ventures after graduation, and that was our motivation to run Idea Idol.Yes, there is a male dominance in entrepreneurship and this was reflected in the competition: over 75% of entrants were male. Encouraging women to become entrepreneurs, and the need to level out the numbers, is something of which I am very aware. It is not for want of role models.One need only look to one judge, Reshma Sohni, (Seedcamp) and one of last year’s winner, Jessica Mather-Hillon (Matoke Matoke) for inspiration. We are looking at ways to improve this situation, but are always open to proposals. If you have one yourself, please send it to [email protected].A final point. One of the winning ‘idle’ ideas you lambast as ‘milking the NHS for profit’, Altitude Medical, estimate they can save over 2,500 lives a year and tens of millions of pounds of NHS spending. In my opinion that makes them true Idea Idols.

Alasdair Bell is the President of Oxford Entrepreneurs.