Oxford is now the only British university that asks applicants to complete a separate application form, after Cambridge last week announced it was scrapping their equivalent.Cambridge University said that it would no longer require students to submit its ‘Cambridge Application Form’ (CAF) and the associated £10 fee, both for administrative reasons and to improve accessibility.From now on, UK and European students applying to Cambridge will only have to complete their UCAS form. Once the form is submitted, students will be asked to complete a supplementary online questionnaire “in common with applicants to many other universities”, which replaces the written questionnaire that is currently sent to applicants.Geoff Parks, Director of Undergraduate Admissions for the Cambridge Colleges, said scrapping the form made business sense. “We’ve been planning to do this since 2003, purely on business process grounds. The main reason for having a separate form was because of the time it used to take UCAS to get applicant data to us. With advances in IT that is no longer an issue,” he said.He also acknowledged arguments that the form gave the wrong impression to applicants: “The fact that the separate application form was cited by some commentators as a barrier to access was an added incentive, and the chaos caused by the postal strike last October was also influential in the final decision to make the change now.” Oxford has said that it is currently considering whether to keep its extra form and fee for students applying for 2009 entry. In 2007, the University reduced the amount of information they asked for on the form, cutting it down to a two-page document.A spokesperson for the University said that Oxford is reviewing how it collects additional information from candidates and their referees.“The University has been aware of the concerns expressed by schools and colleges about the additional burden placed on candidates in requiring completion of separate application materials other than the standard UCAS application, and the perception that this [has] created about access to Oxford,” she said.She suggested that it may be possible to abolish the form and fee, but emphasised that no decisions have been made yet.  “Further refinements to the admissions process, and the development of the UCAS application for 2009 entry, may allow the University to dispense with the need for any separate application form,” she said.“A statement on the future of the separate form and its £10 administration fee will be made once the University has completed its assessment, and will be communicated to schools and colleges in time for the commencement of the 2009 entry admissions process.” James Lamming, OUSU VP (Access and Academic Affairs), believes that Oxford must drop its fees, which in his view deters applicants.He said, “The University must end its undergraduate admissions fee immediately because the charge discourages applications, and falsely implies that Oxford is more expensive than other higher education bodies. Oxford University should also look at collecting any additional information it needs via the UCAS form, rather than having additional forms which may be perceived as an additional barrier to entry.” But Lamming commended the University for providing bursaries to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.“A common but false myth exists that studying amongst the dreaming spires costs more than other universities, and OUSU is organising open days and school visiting schemes to explain about the financial support available at Oxford and hopefully end these financial and other incorrect myths,” he said.“The University has also invested vast sums of money, both in tackling these myths and providing financial support, and they should be commended for their efforts.”
by Mohsin Kahn

Students at Mansfield have launched a campaign against the College’s plan to secularise its traditional branding.A Facebook group, ‘Save the Mansfield Crest’ has been set up in protest at the suggestion that Mansfield’s iconography be altered. Within two days it attracted 214 members and messages criticising the idea that the current college shield, which sports three crosses, should be changed in any way.According to Katie Moore, the Mansfield student who created the group, a new design would be issued on official college correspondence. She has also said, “Some members of the SCR would like the crosses to be removed and to change the Latin text [on the shield]. One proposal is to replace the crosses with unicorns, [since] our crest has a unicorn on the top.”Mansfield MCR voted by a majority of 88% on Monday to keep the current design, and the JCR is set to vote on Monday. Students and staff at the college have also been signing a petition against any alterations of college branding.Moore questioned the need for change and pointed out that alumni have not yet been consulted on the proposals.She said, “I think that it is important that alumni are kept informed of changes to the college. This topic has been discussed in the past and from what I could gauge then, there was strong support to keep [the original iconography]. The alumni should have been asked properly about this, and my group goes to show that they do care a lot and have started to email the development office. “Personally, I do not want to see the shield changed at all. The college has its roots in theology and you can’t change history. I am also a member of the boat club and our kit and blades have become very distinctive in recent years – this all revolves around the crosses on the shield,” she said. Mansield have issued the following statement: “A question was raised as to whether the shield’s Christian symbolism might be seen as in any way excluding those of other faiths or none. The views of the JCR and MCR have been particularly solicited. A decision will be taken at the Governing Body meeting in eighth week of this term whether to revert of the existing shield or introduce any variation. This will take account of all the views expressed.”
by Chris Baraniuk

4/5True West is a grim family drama that plays out the disastrous relationship between two brothers. Screenwriter Austin is peacefully writing his script in California when his delinquent brother, Lee, rocks up to do it bit of burglary in the area. Lee also has an idea for a movie script, a ‘true western’ as he calls it, and eventually persuades Austin’s producer to drop his brother’s script in favour of his own. At this, the brothers go through a reversal of roles, as Austin turns to drink and Lee becomes obsessed with his screenplay. The plot unsurprisingly spirals into violence.The play is compact and tightly written, feeding on the destructive dynamics between the brothers. The interchanges between the brothers feel real, often uncomfortably so, and we get a sense of dragged-up old bitterness and a long, bad history between them. Both are played convincingly; Tom Palmer is frightening and charismatic as Lee, and Sam Caird is painfully believable as the cowed, obliging Austin. Raymond Blankenhorn makes an effective producer, evoking the outside world with slick professionalism. The claustrophobic plot is reflected in the set and the small cast. The intimate space of the Burton Taylor will enhance this and heighten the explosive atmosphere.A longing for the true West pervades, reflected in Lee’s urge to write a real Western. He speaks evocatively of the clean air in the desert, where he has been for 3 months. As things esaclate, Lee exclaims, ‘this would never have happened out on the desert.’ This is the only breath of hope in the oppressive airlessness of the play. Yet there is something compulsively watchable about True West. The brilliant, terrible dynamics between the brothers draw you in, well acted and totally gripping. By Elizabeth Bennett

A group of Regent’s Park students have been forced to move back into college accommodation after their house was burgled twice in the space of six days.The college-owned house, which is on Stanley Road in Iffley, was first broken into on 14 February. Less than a week later it was burgled again, on Tuesday 19.Following the two successive break-ins, Regent’s Park has offered the students alternative accommodation at the college site on Pusey Street, central Oxford. In the mean time the college is installing extra security measures in the house, including replacing the locks, putting bars on ground floor windows, and installing CCTV.JCR President Olivia Wright denied that the college was to blame for the lack of security. She said, “The College has already had the Crime Prevention Officer (CPO) round to look at the property and assess security. The CPO said that only minor alterations needed to be made to deter anyone wanting to make a quick entrance.”Wright added, “The College has acted swiftly in looking after the welfare of the students. At the moment, the main concern is making sure that the students all feel comfortable and that they’re in a secure environment.”The house is off-site college accommodation for students. However, it is owned by the London Baptist Property Board, a branch of the London Baptist Association. The Association assists churches and religious institutions with the management of their properties.According to Sam Tomlin, whose iPod was stolen during the second break-in, the burglaries were probably due to carelessness on the parts of the students. The second year Theology student said, “There was no sign of forced entry. One of the back doors is quite hard to lock – maybe one of us left it open, or maybe they came through an open window, or picked a lock.“It seemed that the thieves had been watching the house for a while: they waited until everyone had gone out before breaking in.” He added, “I haven’t heard anything about compensation yet – it would be nice!”However, Wright said that the London Baptist Property Board (LBPB) has promised to give £100 in compensation to every student involved.Rev Paul Martin, Secretary of the LBPB, declined to comment on the matter. He said, “The LBPB holds the legal title to this property on behalf of Regent’s Park College in the capacity of custodian trustees. The management of the property in question is wholly the responsibility of Regent’s Park College.”
The stolen property included three laptops, an iPod, cash, and a guitar. Sam Tomlin added, “I’m not hugely bothered about losing my iPod – it’s not the end of the world for me. At the end of the day they’re just things.”Ed Randell, a second-year English student at Regent’s Park, said, “It’s been a huge shock, and a very traumatic experience for all concerned. However, the general feeling is that no one in college is really to blame.” The students expect that their lost possessions will be covered by insurance.Since the robberies, the college has been consulting with Thames Valley Police to increase security. Toby Shergold, a police spokesperson, said: “We work closely with all the colleges to make sure security is as tight as possible. Our crime reduction advisers work with college authorities on keeping their premises secure.”Dom Weinberg, OUSU Rent and Accommodation Officer, said that students must take responsibility for making sure that their property is insured. He said, “A number of colleges, including St Hugh’s, ensure that their students take out insurance cover for their rooms; since I know that Balliol doesn’t, it seems highly likely that this varies hugely across colleges. OUSU would recommend that every student takes out property cover, whether this is part of a college system or if they have to do so individually,” he said. Weinberg urged students to follow security measures. “Lock doors and windows when not in your room and be aware of strangers hanging around or trying to gain entry as tradesmen,” he said.
A spokesperson for the University said, “The two main things are not to leave the door to your room unlocked, and not to let strangers ‘tailgate’ you as you go into college entrances after the main doors are closed. Accommodation is a college matter and students with concerns should either talk to the Domestic Bursar, or express their concerns via the JCR President. Overall, the nature of colleges means that accommodation is usually much more secure than private accommodation.”Regent’s Park has re-accommodated all the affected students on the college site while the extra security measures are installed.
by Jack Farchy

4/5 “Hell is other people.” This is something you might have heard before, uttered bitterly by disillusioned adults, or something you might have thought yourself (after being vomited on in an Oxford nightclub, for example). It is also a famous quotation from Sartre’s play Huis Clos, translated into English as No Exit by Oxford students.If you thought being vomited on in an Oxford club was bad, then you will struggle to cope with the human cruelty and vice portrayed in this play. In No Exit, three characters are trapped in a room together, verbally vomiting on each other, creating a hell out of their own humanity. Garcin, Estelle and Inès sit in a room waiting to be tortured, before realizing that they are there to torture each other.This play clearly demonstrates why ‘hell is other people.’ No Exit could easily become an overdone heap of horrible human vice; instead it is made compelling by some excellent acting. At first the audience recognizes caricatures: Inès is emo, with long black hair and dripping sarcasm, Garcin is an arrogant man with a history of adultery, and Estelle is a hysterical society type who clatters around in high heels asking vainly for a mirror. Then the audience learns of the characters’ sins and gains a voyeuristic gratification from watching them manipulate each other. Inès (Joy Tuffield) is sexual and menacing as she taunts Garcin and Estelle; she is brilliant as a deeply disturbed lesbian. Meanwhile Garcin (Zachary Sniderman) oozes masculinity, torn between irritated silence and a desire to manipulate Inès and Estelle. Garcin’s hatred for Inès, but his feelings for Estelle are too ambivalent. Although a powerful character, I could not help but feel that his emotions were often blurred. Estelle (Ellen Buddle), is the sniveling victim of Garcin and Inès’s torment. Her hysteria is overpowering at times and bubbles over into the unbelievable, but her acting is dynamic as she switches from melodramatic to chillingly cruel.Not only does this production accurately portray Sartre’s intentions, it also invites the audience to voyeurism. We watch entranced as the characters destroy each other through a mix of seduction, manipulation and violence. This is no vomit-at-a-nightclub hell; it is a chilling potrayal of humanity at its most horrendous. And it is dangerously enjoyable to watch.

Corpus Christi and St Hugh’s college balls are set to merge as a result of poor ticket sales for the Corpus Christi ball.Corpus JCR President Meg Powell-Chandler blamed the attraction of larger college balls as overshadowing the Corpus Christi event, for which the college only managed to sell 200 tickets. Powell-Chandler said, “It has been a shame that the smaller balls have found it hard to sell tickets and gain sponsorship, but that is unsurprising with big balls like the Worcester College one next term.”Following consultation with the JCR committee and a student vote, which supported the merger by an overwhelming majority, Corpus Christi Ball President Rhiannon Ward has joined forces with Alex Joseph, Ball President of St Hugh’s. Ward commented, “Hugh’s has a bigger capacity than us, plus they had sold more tickets than we had at the time. Merging has increased our market share of the ticket sales so we no longer have to keep worrying about how they sell.”The decision has met opposition from certain members of Hugh’s JCR, who are unhappy that Corpus students may end up paying less for their tickets, and with the fact that the theme was a Corpus decision.However, Joseph has said this was always likely to be the case. He said, “It all happened quite quickly and we had to rush through the bureaucracy so we didn’t carry out a vote amongst the JCR. However, we did consult the JCR committee who unanimously agreed. The fact of the matter is, our ball happens once every two years and we want to make this one better than the last.”The original theme for the St Hugh’s ball was ‘Seven Deadly Sins’, but with the merger comes a new theme, ‘Heaven and Hell’, contributed by Corpus Christi.Joseph said, “We were planning a fairly big ball for around 550 to 650 people. We have a capacity of 1,000 so it seemed logical to go ahead with the merger. We’re hoping around 350 people from Corpus will attend, and with 200 tickets already sold, and so much more interest since we announced the merger, we’re well on our way.”Powell-Chandler, said, “The ball merger is a really good thing from the Corpus perspective […] I’m sure it will be an incredible success.”The ball will now take place on Saturday of first week next term at St Hugh’s College. Competition includes the Exeter College Garden Ball due to take place on Saturday of noughth week and the Balliol College Ball scheduled for Saturday of second week.
by Omotola Akerele
 

The Burton Taylor Studio, 28th February-1st March 
Dennis Kelly’s Debris begins with the Crucifixion. This, though undeniably comparable with the Christian sacrifice it mimics, does not exactly follow any predictable pattern. Perhaps expecting the nobility and tortured resolve of a martyr, we are confronted with a very different spectacle: a flatulent, middle- aged, widowed, alcoholic father-of-two stapling himself to the ceiling; with the aid of ice-lolly sticks. This is provocative imagery and, in the words of his sixteen-year-old son Michael (Matt Maltby), who is first to be greeted by the display, there was no thought of suicide in his eyes. His thoughts, we are led to believe, have their root in anger, sorrow, and the painful realities of a thankless life. But this is only a two-person play, and all this is presented through the eyes of his two young children. The crucifixion is recounted through the eyes of Michael, who, in a dramatic opening soliloquy, creates a poignant, realistic and subtle interplay between character and narrator voice, half-imagined, half-witnessed. Events are described in a disconcerting blend of clinical minutiae and bursts of emotional grandiloquence, introducing the theme of reality as juxtaposed with his own truth and that of his sister Michelle (Sarah Milne-Das). It is a very personal pathos created here. The use of such young protagonists does in no way detract from the impact of the play’s message; to the contrary, the self-conscious incongruity between the poetic register of dialogue and the age and emotional maturity of the siblings captivates us and allows us entry into their world, where reality and childlike fantasy are inseparable. This is emphasised by the unaffected familial chemistry between Michael and Michelle, which develops as the play progresses; in fact, their two different paces of delivery help the flow of the play by off-setting one another, and disrupting any predictable rhythm of dialogue.In Debris, relationships are paramount. They dictate how the children learn to make sense of their place in the world and of each other, and inform their opinion of normalcy – coupled, of course, with the judicious presence of television. This is most striking when the children take it upon themselves to consider the fundamental developmental requirements of an infant, the infant in question having been discovered naked in a garbage heap only to be regarded suckling blood at his surrogate father’s teet: “They need a telly”.Pause. “This is true.” This clearly illustrates the play’s inherent cynicism, but also contrasts it with a dark, but no less pertinent, humour. Maltby and Milne-Das deliver their lines strongly, passionately and with an acute sense of timing, comparable to the Oxford Imps as well as any classical actor. We are drawn inexorably into their understanding of raw survival in the face of human degradation, and as the lines between the reality of truth and the reality created within the secret confines of the play begin to blur, it is their strong performances that, in the words of the playwright himself, “make it all real”. Let's not beat about the bush: fantastic play, fantastic production, fantastic performances. Combined are humourous philosophical insights with excruciating attendant circumstance. The Burton Taylor Studio provides the perfect intimacy for this piece as the audience sits on the brink of the action, while the space is used imaginatively about them. Thank you Will Maynard for your superb direction and a wonderful evening. You can always tell a really good play by the silence that greets it at the end, no one willing to break the spell before the well-deserved applause. By Philippa Harris and Lara Giuliana Gouveia Simonetti. 

A proposal to build a VIP area at Clementines nightclub has been rejected by Oxford councillors at an East Area Committee meeting, while students have insisted the locals are “wrong to oppose such a scheme.”

Clementines in St Clement’s Street, East Oxford, had put forward plans to convert an adjacent hairdressers into a VIP area with a capacity of 20 people. Although the application was originally recommended for approval by Oxford City Council planning officers, the east area committee voted by two to one, with three abstentions, to turn down the plans. The councillors believed that the plans would result in noise disturbances for locals living in York Place and sheltered housing in Anchor Court.Councillor Young, Chair of the East Area Committee, said “One of the councillors had had lots of complaints from residents of a sheltered housing building for the elderly that people were coming there late at night and being ill at the rear of Clementines in York Place. People were worried the plans were not soundproof. We did not reject it but we asked them to come back with specific plans for soundproofing of the room they are proposing to use. That is an old house and it is more difficult to sound proof old houses.”

Luis Carrera, the owner of the club, confirmed that he was going to alter his plans. He said, “My plan is to submit another application. Everyone recommended the application. And after the rejection they recommended to put in another application.”

 Students have reacted angrily to the current rejection of the plans. Adam Tozzi, a third-year Historian at Pembroke, said  “I think the locals are wrong to oppose such a scheme, they seem to get very agitated at the idea of student drinking yet anyone that ventures out on a Friday or Saturday will know that Oxford city centre becomes a much more intimidating prospect when the 'locals' themselves are drinking. Clems offers a haven to students to have a good time and not feel threatened because of who they are.”

Neil Gallagher, a Brasenose Graduate studying Clinical Medicine, explained that “I used to live 100m from clems for 3 years with my room facing the street and never heard much. Occasionally you would hear drunks stumbling back up St Clements but they could have come from anywhere! I personally wouldn't have complained about it as a resident but I'm not surprised it got vetoed.” by Rob Pomfret

Ben Williams takes a look at the policies of US presidential candidates regarding climate change.

The two terms in office served by President Bush could hardly have been more damaging to the environment. Clearly the world’s current situation cannot be solely attributed to one man and one country, far from it. However the USA, as the hegemonic power in international relations, certainly has a greater ability to affect the trajectory of global climate policy than any other state. As the global leader, the example set by the USA will be followed by other countries, and of course it is impossible to reach an effective inter-state agreement on climate policy without the support of the world’s predominant power.

Not only is the USA vital in influencing the policies of other states, but the emissions of the USA alone constitute a large percentage of global greenhouse gas output. America produces 22.2% of the world’s carbon emissions. China is catching up at a ferocious rate, now accountable for 18.4% of emissions, although it has a population nearly 4 times the size of the USA. That its emissions are still below the levels of the Americans demonstrates that the USA is still by far the biggest polluter in the world proportionally as well as in total output. Indeed the statistics for per capita emissions support this statement. Each person in America emits on average close to 19.5 tonnes of CO₂ per year. Again, this is a world-leading total and is nearly 3 tonnes ahead of the next highest proportional polluter, Australia.

The USA is now also the only major country still not to have ratified the Kyoto treaty after Australia’s newly elected prime minister ratified it immediately after taking office. Clearly then, America is by far the world’s most polluting state. The waves of anti-Americanism that seem so salient in recent years are not without foundation when it comes to climate policy. It may sometimes seem as though the USA is used as a scapegoat upon which blame for the problem of global warming is placed, and perhaps its poor record is used to distract us from our own inaction. Still, there is no doubt that America is deserving of its poor reputation on climate action.

Yet there is reason to hope now, as the Bush years finally draw to a close. Irrevocable damage has already been done to the environment, but the worst consequences of climate change can still be prevented and the policies of the presidential candidates seem to acknowledge this. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both co-sponsored the most stringent carbon cap bill in the Senate. They also want an 80% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 as well as the introduction of a cap and trade system whereby carbon credits are introduced and those companies that emit above the limits of their credits are forced to buy credits from companies that emit below them. Republican candidate John McCain also supports this system of carbon trading and wants the capping of greenhouse-gas emissions at 2004 levels by 2012 and then reducing them by 65 percent by 2050.

Clinton has gone further by supporting a controversial shake-up of oil companies whereby a proportion of their windfalls would have to be transferred to investment in renewable energy. She would also like to see 20% of US energy demands met by renewable energy resources by 2020 and has promised to invest $50 billion into research and development of renewable energy and clean coal technology, and new methods of achieving energy efficiency.

How many of these promises are pre-election rhetoric to win the ‘green vote’ is debatable. That both Obama and Clinton’s main emissions reduction targets are the same for instance is more than a little coincidental. It should also be noted that environmental issues, whilst becoming more important to the American voter, are far from being given precedence over issues such as Iraq and immigration. What is clear, and promising, is that whoever becomes the next US president does consider climate change to be an issue worth tackling and that all candidates have set ambitious promises. While there is no guarantee they will be kept, it does show recognition of the need for urgent action. This has not been the case in the Oval Office before.

What is most ironic about the whole situation is that it is the failed presidential candidate from 8 years ago who is most responsible for making climate change an issue is deemed important enough to be included in the policy objectives of the current presidential candidates. Al Gore’s contribution to raising the profile of climate issues might be populist and sensationalist, but it is the most important one that has been made to the American populace. Perhaps, if he had gained a few hundred more votes in Florida, Al Gore would never have become the climate activist that he is today. He certainly wouldn’t have made ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. At least then, through the election of the unyielding Bush, something good came out of it – if only for the environment. This might finally bear fruit when the new most powerful man or woman in the world is elected come November.