The Maidsdir Yashar Alishenas25 – 29 OctoberBurton TaylorSex sells but playwright Jean Genet believes that lesbian sex sells even better. Loosely based on the 1933 real-life story of the Papin sisters who murdered their female employers, The Maids is otherwise entirely fictionalised and Genet formulates a tale of a dominating mistress and two French maids, who are not only sisters, but also lesbians.Theatrical criticism has bracketed the notorious Genet within the absurdist school of theatre, yet such a vague categorisation falls short of encapsulating the biting intensity of this unique playwright, novelist, thief and rentboy. The Maids is among his best-known theatrical works in which the sisters, Claire (Helen Winston) and Solange (Serena Martin) work as housemaids to their impossibly ‘beautiful and good, mistress (Jamie Gaw). However, these adult sisters remain stuck in their childhood and, devoid of any male contact in the cell-like confines of their domestic workplace, games of Doctors and Nurses have become replaced by pseudo-erotic renditions of Mistress and Maid.The play opens into just such a scene of sisterly role-play, with Claire dressing up in her mistress’ clothes while Solange acts the part of downtrodden maid. The scene is initially bewildering to the audience, but director Yashar Alishenas soon clarifies the women’s situation, cautiously revealingtheir precarious relationship which hovers uncomfortably between sisterly affection and fantasised eroticism. The vicious playfulness between Claire and Solange is recognisably that of siblings, yet the power of these play-acting scenes is never quite recreated in those that jump back to reality,and the ‘real’ passionate outbursts seem flat in comparison. This is a challenging piece for any actress, but for young students performing in 21st century Oxford, the task is that much more overwhelming. Yet Winston apparently tackles her role with ease, turning in a performanceof wild femininity and brutal sensuality, utterly compelling from the outset. Martin reacts well as the submissive relation, creating a foil for Winston’s haughty authority, while Gaw truly lives up to the hype of the beautiful lady of the house. Winston and Martin have an obvious rapport,and while scenes with all three characters can lack the depth of these dualogues, Winston’s commanding presence onstage regularly buoys any lacklustre moments.The actresses are choreographed well within the thrust-staging space and there are some other nice directional touches, such as the repeated motif of Claire turning away from the audience, only to have her image reflected back at them by a dressing table mirror. Yet despite such inventive attention to detail, there is an underlying feeling that the audience has somehow been duped. Perhaps this was all part of Genet’s idea, where the boundaries between ‘play’ and reality are blurred to the point of utter mystification, but he cheats his audienceby throwing up innumerable questions without ever pointing to where the answers can be found. The real-life mystery of why the Papin sisters killed their employers was never solved and likewise, the motivation behind Claire and Solange’s desire to murder their mistress is never fully explored. Therefore, their anger seems disappointingly hollow and unfounded.Undeniably, this play would have had a greater resonance with a contemporaryaudience, but quite apart from these contextual difficulties, the complex storyline never quite shrugs off its associations with male fantasy, centring on a pair of scissors-sisters locked in a world of domestic ritual and compliance. The Maids was cutting-edge drama in its time but it now stands as a glorious period piece and Alishenas has admirably resurrected this intriguing play with a tight and uplifting production.ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

The Yalta Gamedir Laura Noiret, Philip Harker-Smith25 to 29 OctoberBurton TaylorThe Yalta Game is a fascinating insight into power, status, security and loneliness, explored within the framework of a highly elusive and ambiguous love episode. The play documents the relationship between Dmitry Gurov (Conal McLean) and Anna Sergeyvna (CecilyHoward), initiated in a Russian coffee shop, and continued erratically over what we assume is a number of years. Using descriptive and evocative language, Friel poses deeply engaging questions regarding the indefinable nature of love: is this characterised by obsession, lust, worship, or an intangibility represented by none of these?Co-directors Laura Noiret and Philip Harker-Smith have made effective use of a simple set and staging. The lack of definition between both scenes and setting lends itself well to a drama in which the audience is constantly transported from one location to another, slipping from cafe to waterfall, from quayside to bedroom. However, given the minimal staging and set requirements, a more extensive use of props could have served to emphasise the constant shifting between the elusiveness of the relationship, and the corresponding tangibility of reality. The music of a solo cello infuses the drama with an atmosphere of haunting and intense loneliness, and serves to enhance the juxtaposition between beauty and loneliness so characteristic of Anna and Dmitry’s relationship.Dmitry’s desperation and loneliness is portrayed excellently by McLean, who commands sympathy with the intensity of his yearning, borne out in his intense facial expressionsand focus. Cecily Howard gives a convincing performance of a woman in search of both adventure and security, portraying the naive and flirtatious side of her character well through gesture and voice. However, in a play that relies so heavily on the expression of an intangible emotional connection, a greater sense of ease and tenderness between the actors would have helped enhance the two performances. Excellent though these were, the characters remained isolated from one another.This production of The Yalta Game promises to be an evocative piece of theatre, where Friel’s beautiful portrayal of a complex relationship is explored with certainty and sensitivity.ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

Travestiesdir Lotte Wakeham27 to 29 OctoberO’ReillyLosing one revolution may be regarded as a misfortune, but to lose two seems like carelessness”.Such epigrams may never have been delivered by Lenin, but in the mismatched memories of British consulate Henry Carr, wartime politics take a determined turn for the Wilde, as the boundaries between art and life, perception and reality fall away in hilarious Stoppardian fashion.Travesties plunges us into Carr’s patchy recollections of Zurich, 1917, where the paths of Lenin, James Joyce and Dadaist artist Tristan Tzara briefly converge within the framework of a production of The Importance of Being Earnest. Wakeham’s production is set among the half-remembered, half-filled bookcases of Zurich Public Library, where faces peering through gaps in the shifting shelves suggest the political espionage of wartime Europe and the hazy acquaintances drifting through Carr’s memory. It is quickfire wordplay that Stoppard does best, and the cast here manage admirably with the demands of the play’s complex verbal jousting.Jack Hawkins, as the dandyish Carr, is a commanding presence, his urbane Englishness juxtaposed perfectly with the avantgarde excesses of his revolutionary peers. Particularly impressive are the exchanges between Hawkins and Stewart Pringle’s Tzara, where witty dialogues on the function of art move seamlessly into powerful meditations on the morality of war. It is in such juxtapositions that this production excels: the cast revel in the dualities of their characters, drifting between the real and the fantastical, the remembered and the imagined. Max Pritchard is hilarious as an impish James Joyce, and Charlotte Cox is similarly impressive in her delightful portrayal of Cecily. Her coquettish exchanges with Hawkins and subsequentstriptease provide some of the more comically surreal moments in which the play really finds its energy.The cast do an excellent job in sustaining an air of spontaneity in Stoppard’s selfconsciously ‘intelligent nonsense’, knowingly navigating the complexities of modernism, Dadaismand Wildean wit with all the necessary vibrancy. ‘The truth’, in true Wilde style, ‘is rarely pure, and never simple’, and Stoppard bends the ‘truth’ to his own fascinating and hilarious ends.ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

A series of controversies has been brought to light during a second inquest into the death of lightweight rower Leo Blockley in December 2000. Senior members of Blockley’s rowing club OULRC were found to have conspired to withhold information from the University’s investigation into the tragedy. Blockley, who was studying for a Masters in Applied Statistics at Lincoln College, went missing after his team’s boat was swamped by waves on the river Ebro while on a training camp near Barcelona on 29 December 2000 just days before his 22nd birthday. His body was found almost a month later several miles downstream. The tragedy was blamed on “freak weather” resulting in 50mph winds which caused the boat to capsize when the crew attempted to cross the river. The first inquest into Blockley’s death in 2001 had recorded a verdict of “accidental death” but when Blockley’s parents uncovered new information relating to safety they contacted the coroner, John Pollard. In an unusual move, Pollard obtained a High Court order enabling him to quash his original verdict on 2 March this year. Speaking to Cherwell, Blockley’s parents said, “We felt Leo’s death had been avoidable. We decided we would campaign to make sure this totally unnecessary and easily remedied problem was sorted.”After Mr and Mrs Blockley met with members of the crew and one of the coaches it emerged that senior members of the OULRC made an agreement not to disclose information relating to the head coach, Leila Hudson. It transpired that she had been drinking only a few hours before embarking on the river.Reverend Jeremy Fagan, then President of the OULRC, told the inquest that the head coach’s “abilities were certainly impaired” as she was “still under the influence of alcohol.” In his narrative verdict at the Stockport Coroner’s Court, Pollard criticised the boat club, saying it was “a matter of great regret that they regarded the reputation of the rowing club as of greater importance than the death of a young man.” He said that “There was what might have been called a conspiracy or also more accurately an agreement by a number of senior officers of the OULRC that they would not make known that the head coach had been suffering the effects of alcohol at the time of death.” He said that University investigator Richard Hartley had been “kept in the dark” and unable to carry out a full investigation. However, Pollard conceded that the fact that Hudson had been drinking the night before had probably not influenced the outcome of the incident.The inquest heard further that there had been no OULRC safety officer in place at the time of Leo’s death. There was confusion between the President of the crew and the Head Coach as to who was responsible for safety and as a result basic safety procedure had been disregarded. The Amateur Rowing Association said in a statement that the inquest revealed “a worrying disregard for the ARA’s guidance on water safety within the OULRC” and that they were disappointed that Fagan “failed to raise his concerns about drunkeness” when he first reported the incident to the association.Fagan responded to the statement, saying “I find it interesting that the ARA seeks to put blame onto me in a way that the coroner specifically didn’t do… I was the first person to tell the Blockleys and their solicitor about what I had seen of Leila [Hudson] that morning, and I have apologised to them, to the coroner, and to the then University Marshal Richard Hartley, for not telling them sooner.”Dr Jonathan Price from Queen’s College, who was the Junior Coach at the time of Leo’s death, also testified at the second inquest. He agreed that Pollard’s verdict was “fair, reasonable and comprehensive,” and described it as “a great relief to have given evidence publicly on this matter, after almost five years.”Jon Roycroft, appointed Oxford University Director of Sport since Blockley’s death, pointed out that “things have changed massively in the last five years” in terms of rowing safety. The coaches on the 2000 trip had been volunteers without clear employment regulations: the University now uses professional, paid coaches. Roycroft stressed that “rowing is now one of the most developed [sports] in terms of safety,” emphasising that since 2003 all members of university and college crews have had to take part in a swim test in accordance with the ARA Water Safety Code. A spokesperson for Oxford University said that they hoped the narrative verdict would “bring an end to any outstanding doubts or concerns of the family or others involved in the tragedy that the causes may not have been fully explored or understood.” They said that the University “takes the safety and welfare of all those involved in sporting activities extremely seriously.”Fagan said “Leo was very hardworking, good fun to be around and he always gave 100%.” Asked about the inquest he said that he was “glad everything is out in the open.” He added that he hoped safety measures would change soon and emphasised the importance of boat buoyancy and targeted safety training for crew members. Mr and Mrs Blockley have since founded the Leo Blockley memorial campaign which presses for improved boat buoyancy. They told Cherwell: “We have no bad feelings towards the crew who lived through the terror of the accident…They looked to senior people to guide them, but that guidance was wrong.” They added that they would “always be indebted” to the brave members of the crew who were “put under pressure to keep it all quiet.” They described Leo as “someone you would always remember even if you only met him once.” “He was generous and genuinely caring and he lived life to the full. We consider it a privilege to have had him as a son.”ARCHIVE: 1st week MT 2005

Two first-year Lincoln students are facing serious disciplinary measures following a drunken incident on Saturday night in which a bench was dropped from a roof at Somerville College. The pair gained entry to Somerville late in the evening during the college’s bop. They found a bench which they proceeded to carry up a flight of stairs to the roof. Whilst carrying it they dropped it and the bench fell, smashing on the car park of the Oratory Catholic Church below.Lincoln College Dean Peter McCulloch confirmed that “an incident of that description is being investigated and handled internally.” An anonymous Lincoln source said that the students had dropped the bench accidentally and had not deliberately thrown it off the roof. The students then came forward the next day to admit to their actions and apologised to representatives of Somerville College.The students are facing a disciplinary committee at their college, which will decide on suitable punishment. McCulloch said that Lincoln are “taking the allegations very seriously.” The disciplinary committee is still hearing the case and is yet to decide on punishment.A number of Lincoln students speculated that the two involved would be likely to have to pay for the cost of the bench and punitive charges. McCulloch said that “monetary fines are part of a large range of disciplinary options within the college rules.”Mark Schaan, Assistant Dean at Somerville said he believed that the bench was worth around £500, although he did not think that it was one of a number of memorial benches owned by Somerville, which hold particular sentimental significance. He did not wish to comment on the ongoing investigations into the incident.None of Cherwell’s sources believe that anyone was hurt in the incident or that any damage was done other than to the bench itself. Members of the clergy at the Oratory Church did not wish to comment on the incident.ARCHIVE: 1st week MT 2005

Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) have become embroiled in a dispute with the Oxford University Student Union over an incident at last week’s Freshers’ Fair.OUCA accused the Student Union of “political bias” after they were repeatedly asked to move a Union Jack flag that they were displaying behind their stall over the three day fair. The Student Union became concerned about “health and safety issues”. The Stallholder Regulations provided by OUSU for clubs and societies wishing to recruit at the Freshers’ Fair said, “You must not create any obstruction across floors, or projecting from under or over tables.” It continues, “This applies to both the vicinity of your stall and to gangways/doors. No obstructive exhibits are allowed.”Chris Allan, OUSU’s Vice-President (Finance) said, “I spoke to the organisers and they informed me that the flag was adjusted for health and safety reasons.”OUSU President Emma Norris, said, “During setup of the freshers’ fair OUSU organisers asked them to move their flag up because people were tripping up over it.”A press release issued by OUCA claimed that the Student Union’s treatment was unfair and that they felt aggrieved that neighbouring stands, which they claim also had low-hanging banners, were not made to adjust them.OUCA Publicity Officer, Charlie Steel, said, “OUCA is very disappointed with OUSU’s clear political affiliations during Freshers’ Fair.”He continued, “The Labour Club stand was directly behind us; its banner was allowed to be a lot lower than ours.”Martin McCluskey, Chair of Oxford University Labour Club (OULC), whose stand was adjacent to OUCA’s, said, “Their flag did drape onto the floor and over the floor space where our activists were standing.”He said that their flag had been “half the size and secured by sturdy poles.” He added, “Their flag was supported by bamboo canes tied together with electrical tape – I don’t call that safe.”Christopher Ware, OUCA President, said, “I was surprised at the OUSU officials’ sustained obstructive and abusive attitude towards the OUCA stand.”Ware maintains that the OUCA Union Jack did not impose on neighbouring stands, saying, “We used masking tape, we used bamboo shoots; emphatically there was no way that it could have intruded on anyone.”One member of OUCA, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “The flag is an emblem of OUCA and cost over £400 to purchase.” He continued, “The flag is always present at every social event worth its salt, and I was disappointed that freshers were not able to see it in its displayed in its full glory.” Another member said, “Let us hope that this dispute has not spoilt the esteemed political reputation of the organisation, of which we are all proud to be members.”ARCHIVE: 1st week MT 2005

Builders and decorators involved in the construction of the controversial animal testing laboratory on South Parks Road were sent anonymous letters over the weekend threatening to “target” them if they continued to be involved in the project.Over twenty cases of such letters have been reported to the police, who are currently investigating their origin. A statement issued by Thames Valley Police said, “It is believed the letters are part of a campaign by animal rights extremists who are trying to prevent work by Oxford University to build new laboratories in South Parks Road.”A police spokesperson confirmed that the letters had been received by companies who had previously been involved in the construction work. He said that “the letters warn that they will be ‘targeted’ but do not make detailed threats.”The police spokesperson added “although everyone is entitled to an opinion about this very emotive issue, it is just not acceptable to act in a way which intimidates other people and threatens their livelihood.”In an article published by The Daily Telegraph, an anonymous victim of one ‘poison pen’ letter said that he received a threat that work by his company for the university’s project would continue “at your peril.”Arrangements are being made across the University to heighten security in the wake of the arson attack on the Longbridges boathouse, owned by Hertford College, and the attempted attack on Corpus Christi Sports Pavilion.Hertford College Bursar confirmed that they “have made additional provision for security” although they declined to detail arrangements for risk of prejudicing their effectiveness.A spokesperson for the University said “the University and colleges take the safety of our students, staff and all those who work with us, and the security of our properties, extremely seriously.” “We continue to work closely with Thames Valley Police on security matters, but it would not be appropriate to discuss arrangements in greater detail” he added.Both Corpus Christi and the University Security Services declined to comment.One builder, who did not wish to be named, told the The Daily Telegraph, “To be honest, I thought it was a bit of a joke at first. We’re quite a small contractor and we only employ eight people. But we do some work for a few Oxford dons and we have done a bit of maintenance on the colleges.”In the same article Robin Webb, spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, said, “If they are supplying Oxford University in any way and through that helping the progress of the proposed facility then they can be considered a target.” Construction was halted at the Oxford site on South Parks Road in north Oxford after the building contractor, Montpellier, withdrew from the project following the targeting of its shareholders by animal rights activists.Nursery group Leapfrog also received threats after they offered child care vouchers to animal testing group, Huntingdon Life Sciences, based near Cambridge. Leapfrog have since discontinued the scheme.ARCHIVE: 1st week MT 2005

The Terrorism Act 2000 could be used by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against extreme animal rights activists and organizations. The Terrorism Act made it illegal for certain terrorist groups to operate in the UK and extended prescription to include international terrorist groups. It is possible for an extreme animal rights organization to be added to the list of outlawed groups. A spokesperson from the Home Office said, “If the Security Service presents the Home Office with a body of evidence which suggests that an organization is a terrorist organization, the Home Office will definitely look into the matter.”The Home Office spokesperson said, “Terrorism, as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000, is the use of threat or action designed to influence the government, to intimidate the public or a section of it, in order to advance a political, religious, or ideological cause.”He added, “The interpretation of the Act lies entirely with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They can decide whether to pursue the actions of animal rights activists under other legislations or Terrorism Act 2000.” The Terrorism Act also gave the police greater powers to help prevent and investigate terrorism, including wider stop and search powers and the power to detain suspects after arrest for up to seven days. Further, a list of new offences were introduced allowing police to arrest individuals suspected of inciting terrorist acts, seeking or providing training for terrorist purposes at home or overseas and providing instruction or training in the use of firearms, explosives or chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Much animal rights extremist activity is covered by criminal law. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 could also be employed to charge extreme animal rights activists. The spokesperson from the Home Office said, “Legally speaking, the Terrorism Act 2000 is a perfectly feasible legislation to use against animal rights extremism. Whether to use it or not is a matter for the police and the CPS to decide.” A University spokesperson said, “The nature of any charges, if and when any individuals are apprehended, is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. The University has no doubt that the CPS will have in mind all possibilities and that any charges preferred will reflect the gravity of the offences concerned.” A spokesperson from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said, “We will select the appropriate charge from a whole raft of legislations that best reflects the evidence brought to us by the police.”ARCHIVE: 1st week MT 2005

There is something quite paradoxical about a place which is one of the leading research centres in the world, where academics are constantly pushing the boundaries of what we know, helping to shape the way we will live in the future and what we think of the past, but which nevertheless seems quite happy to stay just as it is.Many of Oxford’s relics of the past, such as matriculation, sub fusc, May Day morning on Magdalen Bridge, and Oxford terminology are endearing little anachronisms that serve to remind us of what a unique place this is. But Oxford is also home to some other antiquities that we could probably do without. One is the enduring gender gap that we see each summer when the examination results come out and when we look over at High Table in Hall. Men continue to get more first class degrees than their female counterparts, and they continue to heavily dominate the high positions in academia. Still, you cannot have a ‘gender gap’ at an institution that members of only one sex can be a part of, and it is quite perverse to think that great advances have already been made in order to bring about a gender gap at all. Not until 1920 were women admitted to membership of the university and it took almost thirty years for a woman, Agnes Headlam-Morley, to be elected to a full professorship. A quarter of a century then passed before the first of the traditionally all-male colleges, Balliol, elected a woman as a Fellow and Tutor. Twenty years later in 1993, Professor Marilyn Butler, former Rector of Exeter, became the first female head of a former all-male college at either Oxford or Cambridge. Progress, one might say, though painfully slow.In 2001, the percentage of female Oxford professors was 8.5% and, after several years of highly public initiatives to improve this gender imbalance, a few months ago it stood at 8.6%. In the mathematics faculty, only three out of over twenty professorships are held by women; in the faculty of modern history the ratio is two to fifteen and in the department of chemistry only one professor is female. Five years ago 22% of men achieved firsts in finals compared to 17% of women. Feminists would be appalled, but could it be that men are simply more intelligent than women? Recent research carried out by Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn at Manchester University, claims that men are on average five IQ points ahead, and the gap widens as the higher levels are considered. At IQ scores of 125 – the level that they think seems to correspond with people getting first-class degrees – there were twice as many men as women. At scores of 155 and above – levels associated with genius – there were 5.5 men for every woman. But how are we defining ‘intelligence’ here?What we can definitely say is that men do better in tests designed by men attempting to measure one aspect of human intelligence – namely, spatial and verbal ability. This, however, is not what any Finals examination is designed to assess, and so we cannot use research on IQ scores to explain away the discrepancies between something like the number of firsts achieved by men and women at Oxford or Cambridge.Recent studies have shown that there are real gender differences which may be interpreted as putting women at a disadvantage: for example, the difference in the way that men and women approach certain challenges or the difference in their behavior, which in turn reflects their different goals. “Women who seek deep understanding will ask more questions than men, may advance more tentatively and are initially more receptive to the authority of teaching staff,” suggests Dr. Chris Mann, who carried out a three-year study at Cambridge looking into the issue. Men, in contrast, are more likely to make suggestions in tutorials, advance their own theories on subjects and challenge the opinions of tutors and other students. This “intellectual muscle-flexing,” the study argues, is typically seen as an indicator of excellence by a predominantly male teaching staff, rather than the “softly softly” approach adopted by many women. Men, perhaps as a consequence, generally have higher expectations of what they will achieve than women. This was the only factor that was predicative, albeit weakly, of finals marks in a study carried out in Oxford in 2000 by Mellanby et al. It found factors such as intelligence, differences in work ethic, anxiety, depression, happiness, academic motivation, competitiveness, exam strategy and risk-taking in revision unable to explain the gender gap in Firsts. “We therefore thought,” said Dr Mellanby, “that the gender gap must result from factors outside individual differences between sexes and was more likely to be related to a ‘male’ style of answers being deemed more worthy of First Class marks.”  Interestingly, the gender gap is also highly subject specific. For example, it’s big in PPE, English, History and Maths and non-existent in Engineering, E&M, Biochemistry and Geography. Surprisingly, there seems to be no evidence to support the popular notion that extended essays favour women more than ‘sudden death’ exam papers – subjects for which there is no coursework and the degree class depends solely on exams sat in the final year. They are part of the assessment in English and History here and in History at Cambridge, yet all three still have big gender gaps in favour of men  and so women have fared no better since the introduction of this system.What is it that gives men in general the confidence to aim for the very top? There is a danger of making sweeping statements that ignore men who advance tentatively and women who expect to do well and succeed, yet the research seems to agree that men and women appear to have different experiences of academia at Oxford. Perhaps the fact that most Oxford tutors are men is significant when considering that women achieve fewer of the degrees the higher class they are. Female undergraduates at Oxford, it seems, have fewer female academics to look up to and use as role models. Dr Mellanby suggests that “the whole Oxford experience might be more conductive to males than females excelling academically.” He continues, “People have talked of the confrontational tutorial being more likely to ‘put down’ females.”The gender gap in Finals is something that OUSU’s women-only Finals Forums each Hilary Term try to address. However, the effort seems like a drop in the ocean. Acknowledging this, Ellie Cumbo, OUSU VP (Women), said, “This year, Women’s Campaign is going to put the pressure on. We have compiled and formatted the most up-to-date results and plan to submit a paper asking the University to thoroughly investigate the Finals gap.” OUSU see the gender imbalance among the academic staff as the biggest problem and Cumbo went on to say, “As previous generations catch up with ours, the gender discrepancy among tutors is already evening out; it’s crucial that those in charge do all they can to speed this process up, however.” This situation is by no means particular to Oxford. The Times Higher Education Supplement published survey results in 2004, which reveal that female academics are paid less than male academics at every British university. The pay gap stretches to almost 25% at some institutions and 18% is average. Women were also found to be more likely to take on pastoral and teaching-based roles than the more lucrative research-led positions, which often lead to promotions. The roots of the problem, however, probably lie much deeper than just simple pay discrimination. Most importantly, commitment to academia is not conducive to a busy family life. Women who want to have children are forced to make compromises between the two, meaning they have less time to devote to research and networking – especially networking that is usually done over dinner. It is hard to resist the conclusion that in Oxford it is still largely a man’s world, and a woman’s success is to some degree dependent upon her ability to adapt. There seems to be something amiss at a university where research concludes that men get more first class degrees than women, but not because they are more able or work harder.The solution to this problem in the long run seems to be a better gender balance within the senior academic positions so that the University can move on from being so male-dominated. In the meanwhile, however, the current female undergraduates may just have to figure out for themselves what it is that men are doing proportionally more than women, the thing that the assessment system manifestly deems more deserving of the top degree.ARCHIVE: 1st week MT 2005