Sunday, May 18, 2025
Blog Page 40

Oxford University continues to offer scholarship that requires ‘support of the leadership of the Communist Party of China’

Cherwell Investigations
-
0
Oxford University continues to offer scholarship that requires ‘support of the leadership of the Communist Party of China’

The University of Oxford has continued to offer a scholarship in conjunction with the Chinese Ministry of Education, which requires recipients to “support the leadership of the Communist Party of China” and “love the motherland”, as other universities around the world have cut ties. 

The scholarship, run by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) funds up to 20 Chinese students per year in DPhil programmes at the University. In 2023, the CSC awarded approximately 646 placements across 26 British universities. 

Globally, CSC scholarships have come under scrutiny, with multiple universities in the USA and Europe breaking off relations with the programme. The University of North Texas abruptly ended their relationship with the Scholarship Council in 2020, requiring affected students to return home immediately. Negative sentiment towards the programme further intensified in 2023, when a number of European universities across Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands severed ties with the programme.

Following Cherwell’s recent investigation into Oxford University’s financial relationship with China-linked institutions, the CSC scholarships stand out for their discrepancy with the University’s commitment to safeguard the freedom of speech of its students. 

China Scholarship Council and Oxford University

Costs of China Scholarship Council-University of Oxford Scholarships are shared between the University of Oxford and the Chinese Ministry of Education via the China Scholarship Council. The two institutions jointly cover 100% of scholarship recipients’ course fees, living expenses of at least £19,237 for up to 3.5 years of study, and one return flight from China to the UK. 

The award is available to students in full-time Doctorate in Philosophy (DPhil) programmes at the University, who are also residents and nationals of the People’s Republic of China. Students must first secure an unconditional offer from Oxford University before undergoing the selection process of the CSC, who determine scholarship recipients. 

CSC Criteria and freedom of speech

“Basic requirements for applicants,” as defined by the Chinese Ministry of Education include that they must “support the leadership of the Communist Party of China”, “love the motherland”, and “hold correct world views and stances”. 

It is unclear how these requirements are assessed, however, Article one of the current guidelines sets out to “thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.”

In describing the “selection method”, the guidelines further outline that the applicant’s “nominating unit” must “strictly assess” the applicant’s political ideology and submit an evaluation to the CSC. Nominating units include most universities in mainland China, government ministries, and provincial governments. Listed among them are six of the‘Seven Sons of National Defence – a set of Chinese universities with suspected heavy ties to the People’s Liberation Army. 

The University of Oxford does not have involvement in the vetting and selection process after a student’s admission to the University.

Beyond the initial selection process, the CSC may continue to enforce its requirements throughout the duration of the scholarship through secret contracts, originally uncovered by a Swedish newspaper in January 2023. The contracts stipulate that recipients must nominate two guarantors, usually close relatives, who are bound to repay the whole scholarship, plus additional financial penalties, if the recipient breaches the terms of the agreement. Breaches include prematurely ending one’s studies, failing to return to China after the study period, and, more broadly, “engaging in acts that damage the national interest”.

Under the University’s recently approved Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech, it affirms that “freedom of speech and academic freedom are central tenets of university life and must be robustly protected.” Likewise, the provisions of the UK’s Education Act of 1986 imposes the duty to “ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.”

A spokesperson for the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU) in Germany, who cut ties with the programme in 2023, stated: “Under these contracts CSC scholarship holders will be unable to fully exercise their academic freedom and freedom of expression as stipulated under German Basic Law”, and determined the scholarships were “antithetical with [their] kind of values of academic freedom.”

What now for Oxford?

The University’s wider relationship with China-linked institutions may be revised even beyond this specific scholarship after the upcoming Chancellor’s election. Former Chancellor, Lord Christopher Patten, previously cautioned that “we actually have to do our part so that we don’t [see] the erosion of our values in higher education,” regarding the risks faced by Chinese students. 

Current candidates to the chancellorship have expressed markedly different views of the future of Oxford’s continuing relationship with Chinese institutions. Regardless, the possible implications of the CSC scholarship on current Oxford University students must not be neglected and the University’s next steps are currently under significant attention. 

The University of Oxford said in response: “Oxford welcomes applications for postgraduate study from students around the world through a highly competitive admissions process – any successful offer to study is made entirely independently of scholarship awarding bodies.

“All Oxford University research and teaching is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge. We take the security of our academic work seriously, and work closely with the appropriate Government bodies and legislation. The University is fully compliant with the government’s Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS) that requires research students from some nations to apply for an ATAS certificate if their research is in certain sensitive subjects.”

(Appendix) Cherwell Translation of Relevant Guidelines

“Chapter 1 – General Provisions”:

“Article 1: Thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, provide talent support for the comprehensive construction of a modern socialist country, cultivate and reserve talent for accelerating the construction of an important global centre of talent and a highland of innovation, and build a platform for cultural exchange between China and foreign countries for building a community with a shared future for mankind.”

“Chapter 4 – Application Conditions”:

“Article 7: Basic requirements for applicants

1. Applicants must support the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, love the motherland, be of good character, abide by laws and regulations, have a sense of responsibility for serving the country, society and the people, and hold correct worldviews, life stances and values.”

“Chapter 5 – Selection Method”: 

“Article 11 The nominating unit shall review the application materials and has the right to reject any application that is untrue, inconsistent or does not meet the requirements. The nominating unit shall also strictly assess the applicant’s political ideology, teacher ethics (or conduct and academic style), and provide an evaluation of these in the unit recommendation field on the main application form.”

(These translations are drawn from the “Guidelines for the Selection of Students to Study Abroad under the National Scholarship Fund”, and were made using an online translation software, similar translations of the past 2023 guidelines may be viewed in the UKCT report on the China Scholarship Council.)

Rise in harassment claims strains proctorial system

Enrique Normand Velarde
-
0
Rise in harassment claims strains proctorial system

Statute XI and student life: The evolving role of Oxford’s Proctors

The Proctors are one of the oldest and most fundamental parts of the University of Oxford and yet perhaps also the most obscure. Students don’t encounter the Proctors very often; and if they do, it is typically when receiving their coveted degree or a considerably less desirable summary of penalties for misconduct. There have been Proctors in Oxford since the thirteenth century, but unlike most institutions of the day, they continue to play a crucial role in the running of the University now and their activities have a direct impact on current student lives. 

The Proctor’s Office is devised as a body independent of the Vice-Chancellor, tasked with upholding the University’s statutes. It is headed by a Senior and Junior Proctor and an Assessor on non-renewable yearly terms, meaning that every Hilary the position is newly filled with a different individual. Typically these are academics and not senior University administrators, who are elected by each college every thirteen years on an ongoing rota. 

Cherwell has reviewed data from the past ten years of Proctor’s Reports to gain an insight into the workings of the Proctor’s Office within the distinct collegiate structure of the University. Our findings reveal that not only do Proctors continue to be heavily involved with many crucial aspects of student life but this impact is growing greater. While instances of sexual misconduct and harassment are increasing, the Proctor’s Office is still predominantly trained to deal with minor academic-related breaches. 

As an institution, the Proctor attempts to provide centralised disciplinary action in the context of the extreme decentralisation fostered by the college system. In response, the office either relies on inefficient and inconsistent procedural methods or moves to centralise their processes to a potentially problematic point. 

The following figures are derived from data in Proctor’s Reports published in the University Gazette, which provide data related to the Proctor’s Office’s annual activities. There is no standard format for these reports and some data may not be directly comparable across all 10 years. Proctorial years restart every Hilary Term. 

Cherwell was informed that the most recent Proctor’s Report, which covers the proctorial year of 2023-24, is scheduled for publication sometime in Michaelmas Term 2024 despite Statute XI requiring that these reports be made at the end of every Hilary term. 

Statute XI

Figure one

In recent months, Statute XI has become the subject of extensive discussions within the University administration and across the student community after the University Council sought its revision in May of this year. The contents of Statute XI outline the University-wide rules and laws, defining the limits of acceptable conduct for students and other members of the University.

The investigation of both non-sexual harassment and sexual harassment occupies the bulk of the Proctor’s Office disciplinary casework on non-academic misconduct, following “engaging in any dishonest behaviour in relation to the University” and “engaging in offensive, violent or threatening behaviour or language”. 

Across all seven years, the Proctor’s Office has reported an average of 5.6 cases of non-sexual harassment and 5.3 cases of sexual harassment, compared with an average of just 6.6 cases not classed as “harassment”. 

Generally, the class of offence reported every year is not entirely consistent, for instance, a case of “disruption of University activities” only appears in the latest report from 2022-23. The type of breaches reported less than once a year on average include: “possession of drugs”; “breach of library regulations”; “engaging in action which is likely to cause injury or impair safety”. 

This inconsistency may be partly explained by the rare incidence of these offences, yet it also suggests changes in the Proctor’s Office’s approach to the investigation of these breaches. Indeed, the decline of reported cases of “engaging in offensive, violent or threatening behaviour or language” may be correlated with the rise in cases reported as “non-sexual harassment”, however, this is remains ambiguious. 

Regarding their jurisdiction for investigating breaches of Statute XI, the current Senior Proctor, Thomas Addock, told Cherwell: “In general, the Proctors deal with things in a University context, for example, University exams or allegations of misconduct between students at different colleges. If something happens within a college then the college will deal with it.” This jurisdiction on the margins of the collegiate system is not unique to the handling of student discipline and it defines the position of the Proctor’s Office within University life: they exist in the gaps between the colleges. 

From harassment to plagiarism

Figure two


Over the past five years, the Proctor’s Office has reported an average of 73 cases of academic misconduct, compared to an average of 18 breaches of the code of discipline. 

The most common form of academic misconduct is reported to be “plagiarism”. For context, in 2022-23 “plagiarism” made up 67% of the total instances of academic misconduct, and 70% in 2013-2014. 

The largest proportion of the Proctor’s Office’s overall disciplinary caseload over four different proctorial years  is concerned with “academic misconduct” (grey) rather than breaches of the code of discipline under Statute XI (red) (Figure two). These figures were calculated with the sum of total cases reported as “student academic misconduct” and “student non-academic misconduct” for every year. These exclude any additional cases that were listed as “legacy” or “ongoing” and it does not distinguish between those reported as “upheld” or “not upheld.”

The Proctor’s Office’s approach to resolving instances of academic misconduct appears especially inconsistent across this ten year period. The recourse to refer these cases to the Academic Conduct Panel is only reported in the period between 2016-17 and 2019-20, after this point it appears unused. 

Every year some cases are referred to the Student Disciplinary Panel (SDP), yet an average of 2.8 cases were referred to the SDP in the five most recent years of reports compared to an average of 6.8 five years prior. Moreover, 2019-2020 stands out as the only year in which some cases are reported to have been resolved through ‘Proctor’s Decision’.

Additionally, in spite of the wide diversity of the Proctor’s caseload, the institution continues to partly rely on the judgement of the two acting Proctors for the majority of disciplinary cases, appeals, and complaints. In this regard, the Senior Proctor explained: “the Proctors are supported by an experienced team who do the hard work of investigations. They gather the relevant information on which the Proctors make the final decision.” In case of serious breaches, “the Proctors will look at the evidence and decide whether to refer the matter to the Student Disciplinary Panel.” This implies that despite the yearly turnaround in the head positions of the Proctor’s Office, it relies on an established staff of caseworkers. 

Complaints and appeals

Figure three

To further contextualise this range in the work of the Proctor’s Office, it’s important to note that figure two does not contemplate the significant amounts of academic appeals they receive every year. For 2022-23, the Proctors reported the receipt of a total of 124 academic appeals in addition to 84 reported instances of academic misconduct. 

Figure three displays the percentage of students’ complaints and academic appeals upheld by the Proctor’s Office across the proctorial years of 2016-17 to 2022-23. These figures exclude the cases that have been shown as “ongoing” or “legacy” in the Proctor’s Reports.

As shown by figure three, there are some further inconsistencies in the proportion of complaints and appeals upheld by the Proctor’s Office throughout this period. There is no clear trend in the data until 2019-2020, when they plateau slightly. Indeed, in 2017-2018, 28% of cases were upheld contrasted by 8% the year after. Yet in the last three years, the proportion of upheld complaints and appeals has been steady. 

In November 2017, there was a change in the University regulations, which introduced a three-step process – an informal first stage, a formal second stage and a review stage – for the handling of student complaints and appeals. This meant that a larger proportion of the majority of complaints were resolved without direct intervention from the Proctor’s Office. The introduction of this change may explain the evident variation in the percentage of cases upheld between 2016-17 and 2019-20. Implementation of an informal first stage of resolution demonstrates a desire for a partial decentralisation of this process. 

There is no detail given in the most recent reports about the nature of student complaints, although some earlier reports cite reasons relating to “maladministration”, “discrimination”, and “teaching and supervision”. In contrast, academic appeals are explained to be largely “against decisions from Examiners” or otherwise related to “examinations” and “research student candidatures”.

Amendment controversy

The controversial amendment to Statute XI was first published in the University Gazette with an announcement of a legislative proposal from the University Council . Among the proposed changes, the Council sought to add a more detailed definition of “sexual misconduct” into the code of discipline. 

A note accompanying this proposal explained that the changes were based on a decision of the University’s Education Committee to “widen the Proctor’s jurisdiction to investigate more cases of serious misconduct. As more of these often complex cases are now being reported, a range of legislative and procedural improvements are necessary to prepare for further increases that we expect to receive.”

Presently, it outlines that the offence broadly consists of “any behaviour of a sexual nature which takes place without consent where the individual alleged to have carried out the misconduct has no reasonable belief in consent”. The proposal included a further definition of both “consent” and what constitutes “sexual activity”.

Despite the fact that the Proctor’s Reports typically utilize the term “sexual harassment” and that this offense occupies a significant proportion of the Proctor’s caseload of non-academic misconduct, (figure two) there is no explicit definition of this term under Statute XI. Likewise, a clear distinction between what is termed “harassment” and what is referred to as “engaging in offensive, violent, or threatening behaviour” is not made explicit. This percentage shows no clear trend until 2019-2020, when a consistency seems to be established. Indeed, in 2017-2018, 28% of cases were upheld contrasted by 8% the year after. Yet in the last three years, the  proportion of upheld complaints and appeals has been steady. 

Furthermore, in light of the claim that “more of these often complex cases [serious misconduct] are now being reported” used to partly justify the original revisions to Statute XI, it appears that the proportion of cases of non-academic misconduct dealt with by the Proctor’s Office is not increasing in any significant (figure two). Yet, the average reported cases of non-academic breaches for the past five proctorial years, that are currently available, is 91, noticeably higher than the five years before that when it was 63. 

Other amendments aim to change clauses related to student discipline more broadly: including a new requirement to “promptly inform the Proctors in writing if they have been arrested by the police and released under investigation (…) or if any of the foregoing appears likely to occur, and whether in the UK or abroad.” This and similar changes were criticised as “illiberal and antidemocratic” by an open letter circulated shortly after the announcement of the Council’s proposal. Before Congregation could meet on the 11th of June, the Council’s original proposal was withdrawn and the meeting cancelled. 

Recently, Congregation met again on the 15th of October, and passed a resolution to form a “working group” for revising all proposed changes to Statute XI. This initiative was proposed by members of Congregation, and was formulated in response to the withdrawal of the original proposal.  As such, this group will be made up of “relevant university officials, a student appointed by the Student Union, and five members of Congregation”. Importantly, it also seeks to “consult widely with members of academic staff … and students.” 

Collegiate gaps

The Proctor’s Office is caught between the grey areas of Oxford’s collegiate system. It is torn between the changing needs of students and the demands of the central University administration, both of which require this institution to continuously adapt and evolve. This is no easy task. 

The wide-reaching and diverse range of activities that this role demands can lead to further ambiguities, over stretched-resources, and possibly even foster suspicion on the part of the student community. In this vein, David Kirk, former Junior Proctor, concluded his demission speech by encouraging “the institution to think about ways to enhance the perceived legitimacy of the ways it handles both student and staff conduct. I encourage the institution to put even further thought into prevention.” 

‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year

Ekam Hothi
-
0
‘Brain rot’ named Oxford Word of the Year

Oxford University Press named “brain rot” as its Word of the Year today after over 37,000 people voted from a shortlist of six. An earlier Cherwell Instagram poll with 783 responses – much smaller in sample size but perhaps more representative of Oxford students – also voted “brain rot” as the clear winner with 45%.

“Brain rot” (noun): Supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as a result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging. Also: something characterised as likely to lead to such deterioration. 

OUP experts saw a 230% increase in frequency of the word between 2023 and 2024, initially gaining traction on TikTok and now entering mainstream use to reflect both the cause and effect of over-consuming low-quality online content. It is strongly associated with certain types of content including Skibidi Toilet video series and “only in Ohio” memes.

The word traces back to 1854 in Henry David Thoreau’s book Walden, in which he narrates his simple lifestyle in the woods and criticises societal devaluation of complex ideas. Thoreau wrote: “While England endeavours to cure the potato rot, will not any endeavour to cure the brain-rot – which prevails so much more widely and fatally?”

“Words” nominated by language experts at OUP need not necessarily be a single word. Rather, they may be phrases or even emojis, as in 2015 when “face with tears of joy” took the title. The OWOTY should reflect the world over the last 12 months, encapsulating a moment or trend of cultural significance. Notably, no word was chosen in 2020, as OUP deemed it impossible to sum up the unprecedented year in a single word.

Voting is currently ongoing on the OUP website, and will close on Thursday 28th November. The winner will then be declared on 2nd December, after a final analysis of votes, corpus data, and public commentary. Ultimately, OUP produces a report on the OWOTY, which includes information such as differing definitions, etymology, variations in spelling, word frequency, and cultural impact.

The following words made this year’s shortlist:

“Demure”

Adjective: Of a person: reserved or restrained in appearance or behaviour. Of clothing: not showy, ostentatious, or overly revealing.

“Dynamic pricing”

Noun: The practice of varying the price for a product or service to reflect changing market conditions; in particular, the charging of a higher price at a time of greater demand.

“Lore”

Noun: A body of (supposed) facts, background information, and anecdotes relating to someone or something, regarded as knowledge required for full understanding or informed discussion of the subject in question.

“Romantasy”

Noun: A genre of fiction combining elements of romantic fiction and fantasy, typically featuring themes of magic, the supernatural, or adventure alongside a central romantic storyline.

“Slop”

Noun: Art, writing, or other content generated using artificial intelligence, shared and distributed online in an indiscriminate or intrusive way, and characterised as being of low quality, inauthentic, or inaccurate.

2024 marks the third year that OUP has opened up the OWOTY to a public vote. In the first 2022 vote, 340,000 people chose “goblin mode” as the runaway winner with 93% of the vote, beating “metaverse” and ‘“IStandWith”. Last year, the winning word was “rizz”, edging out “swiftie” and “situationship”.

Anita Okunde elected Oxford Union president

Selina Chen
-
0
Anita Okunde elected Oxford Union president

Anita Okunde running for the #Unify slate has been elected Union President for Trinity Term 2024 with 564 first preferences, by a margin of 44 votes over Siddhant Nagrath. She will be the first Black woman to hold the office.

The #Elevate slate swept the officer roles. Anya Trofimova will be Librarian-elect with 660 first preferences. Rosalie Chapman will be Treasurer-elect with 646 first preferences. Raza Nazar was elected Secretary with 590 first preferences.

The following candidates were elected to the Standing Committee, from highest to lowest order of votes: Veer Sangha, Katherine Yang, Oliver JL, Jennifer Yang, Hamza Hussain, Prajwal Pandey.

Secretary’s committee, or order of votes, will comprise of: Brayden Lee, Arwa Elrayess, Samy Medjdoub, Matthew Chiu, Adam Ballman, Akshay Pendyala, Catherine Xu, Victor Marroquin-Merino, Yeji Kim, Toki Hong, and Faizan Ijaz.

1236 votes were cast in total.

Oxford cured my perfectionism

Stella Clark
-
0
Oxford cured my perfectionism

Pre-Oxford, I was everything you would expect of a to-be Oxford student: top marks, homework always in on time, projects completed to the nines. I never would have admitted that I felt pressured to be ‘top of the class.’ It’s true that I was not pressured by parents, friends, or even teachers – I don’t think. And yet, I know that deep down, back then I needed to be top of the class. I needed to feel the security that came from knowing that I was doing well, I was doing best.

Because it was my identity. Bookworm. Academic. (Sweat). It was a core part of me, internal pressure building as it bubbled up, up, and poured out into my homework, classwork, and tests.

It would have been safe to assume that on this trajectory, Oxford would swing the pendulum even further, heightening my perfectionistic tendencies. And yet, contrary to what people might assume, being at Oxford actually cured my academic perfectionism. There’s no longer the pressure to be at the top, because everyone here hails from the academic summits. There’s no longer a clear mountain
that I have to climb, that I have to be on top of. I’ve experienced great freedom in just, well, giving up. I no longer try to be top of the class. I no longer feel the need to
be the best. Of course, I still put in effort – but that effort comes from wanting to enjoy my degree, not wanting to reach the top. I want to learn, not secure top place. There’s no point in trying to be the top of the class anymore, because we have all climbed past the clouds and are together upon the peak. There are still sub-peaks, higher places you can climb up to. There are the people who get firsts. There are people who want to do a Master’s. But to me, these seem more like cairns: not at all necessary (or recommended) to climb. If you see someone on one, you are impressed, perhaps taken aback, but feel no compulsion to join them. There is no sense that you have failed in not climbing one. Sometimes it’s fun to climb a cairn – there might be a slightly different view, a better one, even – but it’s certainly not necessary. Certainly not something one must do every week.

Things that would have horrified me a few years ago are now no big deal. Need to ask for an extension on an essay? Totally fine. Handing in a piece of work a few hours late? Doesn’t faze me. Have to hand something in that I know is sub-par? Oh well. Doesn’t matter too much. It’s near-impossible to meet every deadline here. Definitely impossible for every piece of work to be perfect. So the Oxford workload, rather than triggering a stress response, has instead desensitised me to the fear of academic failure. Exposure therapy, I suppose. It’s very freeing.

So here, I am no longer the academic one. The bookworm. The sweat. I’m not aiming for a first. I don’t want to do a Master’s. Although there are people beyond my primary
friendship group who probably still think of me as the ‘quiet’ one – I’ve never been a fan of raising my hand in class, that much hasn’t changed – amongst my friends, I’ve become known as the ‘chaotic’ one. The ‘fun’ one. The one dragging everyone to bops and making them dance. The one rallying them to stay up on May Day. The one who does hair and makeup for people before going out. The one with the most ‘entertaining’ love life (such a flattering label).

And so I’ve experienced a different sort of imposter syndrome. I’ve not experienced any significant academic imposter syndrome – not that I feel on top of the work; just
that I’ve sort of bumbled my way along in bemused acceptance. But I have most definitely felt social imposter syndrome. How have I become the one amongst my friends who wants to go out the most? The one who (apparently) knows most about hair and makeup and clothes? The one who supplies the friendship group with the best (as in
worst) relationship drama? How is all this me? Until relatively recently, I didn’t give a second thought to clothes, or hair, or makeup, or social events – let alone
relationships. It’s been a total social repositioning. The pendulum has swung entirely the other way. Of course, these shifts are a natural part of growing up. Yet I know
that being in Oxford has intensified the contrast.

But then I go home for the vac, and hang out with my brother and his girlfriend and their friends … and the pendulum swings again. All of a sudden, I’m flung back into
my role as the academic one, the one who loves studying – the one who even goes to Oxford, of all places. My makeup bag is pitiful compared to theirs. My wardrobe is drab – seriously lacking in trends. To them, my social life must seem painfully tame and stiff. My love life too, probably. Your parties are run through college? A black tie dinner is your idea of a fun Friday night? I must seem ridiculous.

I suppose all this should leave me with a bit of an identity crisis. A sense of disorientation, hesitancy, or loss. But as it turns out, I’m quite happy to just sit on the pendulum and let it take me where it will.

Cut the job chat

Oliver Smith
-
0
Cut the job chat

It’s Michaelmas term of my final year. The days are short, my patience even shorter, and every conversation seems to circle back to the same dreaded question: “What are you doing next year?”

Michaelmas is when all those lofty intentions to apply for grad schemes meet the sobering reality of fast-approaching deadlines. Applying to jobs is stressful enough, without the Oxford degree looming – just try taking your third psychometric test of the week while your half-finished essay languishes in another tab. It sure isn’t fun.

But worse than the stress of applying is the incessant yapping about it. Grad schemes have become the be-all and end-all of the Oxford bubble. They’re sold to us as a one-way ticket out of whatever nondescript town we come from; financial stability is a bonus. For those of us who live outside London, they promise salvation from spending next year stranded in District 12, working the same part-time job we had when we were sixteen. The endless scrolling on LinkedIn is now tinged with urgency, jealousy, and the faint drone of parental reproach. 

When you’re in your fourth year, this stress is compounded by the unsettling reality that most of your friends have already secured their degrees – and probably a place at one of the Big Four, despite having never declared any particular affinity for accountancy. Others have succumbed to what they admit is ‘panic Masters’, buying themselves an extra year of borrowed time. 

In just the last week, I’ve seen friends flip-flop from applying to the first posting they found when they searched “well-paid grad scheme” online to announcing that they intend to spend a gap year in the Amazon rainforest, learning Portuguese to “boost employability”. It’s starting to wear me down.  

But here’s the thing: Oxford is just one giant bubble. There’s always been this constant pressure to secure the perfect next step – be it a micro-internship or a summer analyst position. Out in the real world, people take winding and unexpected paths. Careers aren’t made or broken by the end of November. 

So, can we please stop obsessing over grad schemes? Getting the degree should be priority number one. And besides, we found other things to talk about before all this job chat came up. Let’s try and make the most of the time we have left in Oxford. In any case, no more talk of Brazil! 

The inevitability of Noodle Bridge

Devon Darley
-
0
The inevitability of Noodle Bridge

In a controversial move, Christ Church College has been granted approval for the construction of a new footbridge crossing the A40. But what makes this bridge newsworthy, you may ask? Although only a bridge, it epitomises the fact that no construction project is safe from the inventive thinking of modern architects. 

Dubbed the ‘noodle bridge’, Christ Church’s new foray into modern architecture has caused an uproar, with locals slamming it as ‘nonsense’, ‘very ugly’, and ‘totally inadequate’. Certain council members and architects have launched a staunch defence, boasting that the bridge and its odd wavy shape was designed by an ‘award-winning’ architectural firm. To many, it seems ‘award-winning’ and ‘aesthetically pleasing’ do not necessarily go hand in hand. 

The new bridge is part of a wider plan by Christ Church to develop a small snippet of its 10,664 acres of owned UK landholdings. The infrastructure forms part of a wider scheme to build 1,450 new homes at Bayswater Brook, located just north of Headington. Adding insult to injury, many locals have voiced that the location of the bridge is inadequate for its very purpose: this new development will massively increase road congestion and is located too far west to make a meaningful impact on future residents. 

Despite the litany of concerns, Christ Church’s plan has been approved by both the South Oxfordshire District Council and Oxford City Council. Whichever way your opinion about the ‘noodle bridge’ sways, it now remains only a matter of time before the foundations of yet another exemplar of modern architecture are laid in our great city; Oxford.

Intoxtigation 2024: Merton drinks least, Christ Church most, and two thirds tipsy around tutors

Laurence Cooke and Victoria McKinley-Smith
-
0
Intoxtigation 2024: Merton drinks least, Christ Church most, and two thirds tipsy around tutors

The results of Cherwell’s unprecedented investigation into students’ drinking habits are finally in. We have received over 1,250 responses – nearly 10% of the University’s undergraduate body – across every year, college, and course. Data can now tell us conclusively which colleges and courses drink the most and the least, and reveal the scope and nuances of Oxford’s relationship to alcohol. No stone was left unturned from rankings of bars, pubs, and drinks through to students’ behaviour in contexts as varied as sports socials, crewdates, society debating drinks, and dinners with tutors. Prepare yourself for some surprises as we test out which pieces of received wisdom fit with the data. 

Overall picture and methodology 

Assuming that people would not be bothered to calculate their total units per week and then find the average of this: as editors we tried ourselves and it was too convoluted and definitely took longer than the five minutes we promised you the survey would take. The Features team instead focused on how many days each week students were drinking, and then factored in units at this stage to gauge intensity. The NHS defines a unit as “10ml or 8g of pure alcohol, which is around the amount of alcohol the average adult can process in an hour.” The NHS weekly recommended limit is 14 units, which should be spaced out throughout the week. A pint of beer or glass of wine is approximately two units, a single shot of a spirit one unit. 

It’s ironic then, that when only 23.6% of respondents considered their alcohol consumption to be ‘quite heavy’ or ‘very heavy’, 51.8% regularly consume the NHS weekly limit of 14 units in one night. Within this figure, 20.7% of respondents had at least 28 units over just two or three days each week. 8 people claimed to drink (at least) 98 units of alcohol weekly.

The emerging picture is that students underestimate how much they drink, since 80% of respondents viewed their consumption as ‘low’ or ‘moderate’. 7.8% of respondents were teetotal. It’s worth noting, of course, that non-drinkers were probably less likely to fill out the survey. This notwithstanding, it is still possible to compare across colleges and courses, since this limitation applies everywhere. And of course, a large number of non-drinkers did still take the time to help us out and fill in the survey. 

Ranking the colleges 

The goal of this investigation was to compare perception and reality. In some cases, it seems that stereotypes hold true, others less so. Results are also often very split. St Peter’s is perceived as the college that drinks the most, but with only 18.1% of responses. Balliol followed with 14.8%, and Teddy Hall claimed third with 7.1%, with Catz on 5.5%.

Stereotypes really kicked in at the other end as 33.7% voted Mertonians as the students who drink the least. Wycliffe Hall was a clever choice – given its status as a theological college – with 9.8% of respondents. The most telling, then, were the next popular options: 7.8% for Harris Manchester (postgrads don’t have fun?) and 4.3% for LMH, intriguingly. Next was 3.7% for Corpus Christi. 

As it turns out, Christ Church, not Peter’s, is Oxford’s booziest college. The average ChCh student drinks on 4.06 days per week on average, including 1.28 days with heavy drinking of 14 units or more. They were followed by Regent’s Park, Oriel, Brasenose, and St John’s. Peter’s dropped down to 8th in terms of overall days drinking (3.64), but was second for days of intense drinking (1.17). Balliol came 6th and Teddy Hall was mid-table. Here we didn’t include the results from colleges with less than 20 responses, of which there were four (Hilda’s, Pembroke, Lincoln, and Harris Manchester). They were all mid-table at any rate. 

Cherwell can officially confirm that Merton is where fun goes to die. Mertonians drink an average of 2.48 days per week, and a rowdy 0.24 days for 14+ units. They were joined near the bottom by Magdalen and Mansfield (2.77 and 2.82 respectively). One wonders if Merton’s reputation is affecting the kind of students it recruits, turning a once unfounded perception into a reality. All’s well that ends well: they’re top of the Norrington Table for a reason. 

The course contest 

With so much time on their hands, HisPolers are the biggest drinkers at 4.26 days per week, and 1.27 for heavy drinking. However, it’s actually those who do Asian and Middle Eastern Studies who love a hard night out the most, at 1.45 days of heavy drinking. English, Human Sciences, Classics, and Law also feature near the top, according to the data. All subjects in the ranking had 10 submissions or more. 

By way of contrast, Computer Science students only drink 2.60 days per week. At least that’s still more than the average Merton student. They were followed by Philosophy, Psychology and Linguistics (PPL) as well as Earth Sciences, and Modern Languages. Engineering is solidly in the middle of the table with 3.47 and 0.75. The picture from the subjects is not easy to interpret, but broadly shows humanities students outdrinking expectations in contrast to their STEM peers. 

The gender gap? 

Another important facet of Oxford’s drinking demographics is gender. 52.4% of the survey’s respondents were female to 43.9% male, so different genders were well represented. Perhaps unsurprisingly, men drink substantially more heavily, averaging 1.12 days of heavy drinking per week to women’s 0.65. This means that if men were a college (an alternate universe Mansfield, you could say), only Christ Church and Peter’s would go harder than them. More widely, male respondents drink 3.69 days per week on average, to women’s 3.18. This isn’t necessarily evidence that men are more often drunk than women, of course, just that they consume more alcohol. 

Enthusiastic freshers 

The image of the silly, inexperienced fresher is indeed accurate. It turns out that first years drink on an average of 3.60 days each week, dropping to the rock bottom of 3.22 in second year. After a year of being berated by your tutors and falling victim to essay crisis after essay crisis, it seems that second years are slightly more world-weary than they are a year prior when they have freedom for the first time.

Perhaps surprisingly, third and fourth years experience something of a new lease of life, with numbers increasing up to 3.44 and 3.40 respectively. Is this finalist fomo, or does the crippling pressure of finals spark a need to hit the cheese floor?. Third years may drink more regularly than second years, but when they do, it is generally less than 14 units. Second years are therefore still drinking more heavily than third years once they get going, at 0.87 days a week compared to 0.82. But freshers win on both counts, passing the NHS weekly limit on 0.93 days a week on average. Ah, to be young again. 

Bars and pubs 

There was a huge split in opinions regarding which college has the best bar. We didn’t prohibit respondents from answering with their own college bar, and there were several ‘don’t knows’ and some quite angry responses, including “don’t know, don’t care” and “all are shit”. The best college bar, according to public opinion, is Balliol with 19% of responses (hardly a landslide majority), followed by Peter’s (17.1%), Worcester (9.1%), Jesus (8.5%), and, interestingly, Regent’s Park (4.2%). 

The crown of worst college bar goes to Wadham (9.9%), followed by Catz (8.4%), Christ Church (7.5%), Keble (6.2%), and Oriel (5.5%). It’s probably also worth remembering that these are still bars which respondents (or their friends) are likely to have visited, and there will be even more mediocre bars that people just ignore. 

The matter of pubs was no less controversial. The Lamb and Flag received the most votes at 17.4% of responses. This was followed by Wetherspoons’ Four Candles at 13%, then Turf Tavern on 11.7%. From there the order was White Rabbit (8.4%), King’s Arms (6.8%), Chequers (6.6%), The Bear (5.2%), Spoons’ Swan and Castle (4.6%), LGBTQ+ pub The Jolly Farmers (4%), The Grapes (3%), White Horse (2%), and then many more.  Some respondents used the open text option to cast their vote for The Jericho Tavern and The Cow and Creek. Another, seemingly misunderstanding the question, opted for New College bar. 

In the opinion of this writer (a John’s student), it is astounding that anyone would vote for anything but the Lamb and Flag. The ambiance, the history, and the choice on tap are simply unmatched. Yet clearly location also plays a big factor: with their college literally a stone’s throw away across Oxford’s nicest cobbled passage, 49% of John’s students opted for L+F as their favourite pub, over 30 points more than average. A select few lucky students actually live above the pub. 

Drinking and society events 

Alongside pubs and bars, there is no shortage of drinking-related society events to attend in Oxford, with the most popular being Tuesgays, which 28% of respondents have attended at least once. In the political scene, it was once again a Labour victory by an underwhelming popular vote margin with Beer and Bickering sweeping 10.24% to Port and Policy’s 9.12%. 

All placing at just over 3% in the alliterative events space there is FemSoc’s Liberation and Liquor, Liquor and Liberalism, and the communist October Club’s Rum and Revolution (3.28%).

PPE soc’s Bottles and Banter was left with a meagre 17 respondents. Of course, should you become a section editor at Cherwell (see our Instagram), you’ll have access to our fantastic socials.  

The good, the bad, and the ugly places people have been drunk 

Oxford may be renowned as a place where Britain’s best minds tutor diligent students, but this hasn’t stopped nearly two thirds (64.6%) of us from being drunk around tutors at least once while at Oxford. 

From fresher formals to subject dinners, Oxford almost endorses enjoying a glass of wine (or five??) with tutors who wrote half of the secondary reading for your essays. Now the question is, does this enhance your professional relationship or hinder it? Maybe ask one of the 115 students who have been drunk around a tutor more than five times. 

As for the most inappropriate places Oxford students like to drink, naturally we have the holy trinity: church, library, tute. It almost seems as though students like to use alcohol as a coping mechanism for stressful situations (“prelims” was a frequent response, as well as the (more specific) “Spanish oral exam”). Others described having brought along mulled wine to “liven up” a tute. 

In fact, some get the memo about Oxford’s drinking culture before they are even accepted, taking the edge off their admissions interview. Start as you mean to go on, I guess. Now, although I would probably have to be drunk to ever sign up for the Oxford Half, this doesn’t mean you should run it whilst being under the influence, but according to one survey response, this has indeed been done. Whoever you are, the authors are in awe.  

It’s not just in academic settings that Oxford students are drinking in bizarre places (whatever happened on the “Hertford philosophy retreat in the Cotswolds”?) In fact, students drink in places ranging from the Tescalator to their cousin’s seventh birthday party. Some responses we were too scared to publish. The word ‘inappropriate’ has never felt so apt. 

The crewdate is often viewed as the cornerstone of drinking tradition here. Yet it’s not a universal phenomenon, with 39.3% of respondents having never been on one. Marmite comes to mind, with 16.7% having been on six or more throughout their degree. 

The timeless adage ‘what happens on a crewdate stays on a crewdate’ was cast aside by the Intoxtigation’s plucky respondents allowing us to provide you with some nuggets of Oxford’s weirdness. So if you are squeamish, look away now. Stories ranged from crewdate classics of taking shots out of belly buttons and eating a cucumber from two ends to somewhat more unconventional tales of body wash, breast milk, and exploding onion bhajis. Like social media moderators, the Features team has now seen everything from toe-sucking to dislocated knees, people going commando for ‘good pants bad pants’ to penis laceration. A large amount of responses were of a highly sexual nature. 

I sconce anyone who leaves a crewdate for not wanting to drink out of £500 shoes. And to the person who left the message “The Isis has been known to outdrink Cherwell” – I hope you have rectified this erroneous belief following the editorial team’s impressive week 6 performance. 

We couldn’t mention crewdates without talking about sport. Unsurprisingly, 67.4% of people considered rugby the most alcoholic sport, followed by football and rugby (both roughly 12.5%). Other common suggestions included hockey and netball. And whoever thinks choral singing is a sport, touch grass. 

Cost and choice 

How much we spend on alcohol is also a key factor in consumption, with the most common spend being £10-20 per week (26%). 35.3% spend less than this, or nothing at all (if you do drink, we’re assuming you only go to Spoons). 19% spend north of 30 quid each week. We’re assuming the 37 people who splash more than £70 each week (£560+ each term) are the rich friends that 31.6% of our respondents would rely on to buy jägerbombs for them in the club, or buy any at all. 40.9% refuse to get drinks in the club out of principle. Pres really is best. 

£4-£5 appears to be the average price of a pint where students are from. Apologies to the (presumably) Londoners – 8.8% of those surveyed – who pay over £7 each time, you (almost) have our sympathies. We’ve suspicious that anywhere in the UK the average price of a pint is £2, so we’re assuming the 80 people who selected this option live abroad or their hometown literally is just a Wetherspoons. 

Of course, it’s not just how much you’re paying but what you’re drinking that varies wildly. Beer is Oxford’s winner with a quarter of students judging it to be their favourite drink. A long way behind is cider (12.3%), closely followed by vodka and a mixer (11.5%), cocktails (10.9%), white wine (8.2%), gin and mixer (6.2%), red wine (6%), and so on. Wine is definitely a strong Oxford preference – if we’d combined all the wine categories (red, white, rosé, port, etc), it would have been a stronger second place at 18%. 78 aficionados surveyed have also been to Bacchus wine tasting. Honourable mentions from the open text response also go out to ale (yes stranger, we apologise for not diversifying the beer options respondents could select), crosskeys, and tea. 

If you’ve read this far, you clearly have enjoyed our crunching of Oxford’s alcohol numbers. We’ve tried to cover as much ground as possible, and with some interesting smaller points amongst the larger headline conclusions, hopefully everyone has learned something. And that something is probably to be very scared going into a crewdate. 

Lessons from the Cambridge Union

Laurence Cooke
-
0
Lessons from the Cambridge Union

I went to Cambridge a few weeks ago, and attended a Cambridge Union debate on whether feminism and religion were compatible. I should warn you at this stage that this is most certainly not an article about our esteemed Oxford Union. Any similarities (or perhaps unfavourable contrasts) between the two institutions are purely incidental and drawn at the reader’s own discretion. 

Their Union is a relaxed space. The debating chamber is warm, quite small, and intimate. No Union people or anyone else — besides the Officers and speakers — wore anything more than smart casual. I was greeted at the door with a smile and waved through with my OU card, no questions asked. Many people enjoyed a pint as they watched the debate from the crammed balcony. 

There were precisely zero minutes of pre-debate shenanigans. To my astonishment, the officers and speakers arrived promptly, the president announced the floor prize, and then the whole thing kicked off. There was no mention of anybody’s ‘business’. Instead, we got straight onto the real business and the whole reason we were all there: to hear the debate. 

There were four speakers on each side and nobody spoke for too long. Only one speaker was a student, and they were a fresher. There were no roasts or parliamentary theatrics. Just a frank debate between atheists and liberal religious figures. It was refreshing to hear articulate adults provide different points of view.

Afterwards, everyone was treated to free chips in the bar, with speakers, Officers, and attendees all mixing together. Nobody was whisked away to a private post-drinks reception. Results were announced promptly by the president: it was conclusively decided that religion and feminism were not compatible. As cheers went up, I sat back in my chair to reflect on the night. The Cambridge Union is a smaller, less significant institution than its Oxford equivalent — but I can’t help but feel that a visit to the other place for one Union in particular might well be in order.

Oxford Union believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide

Cherwell News
-
0
Oxford Union believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide

The Oxford Union voted for its controversial motion “This House Believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide” last night, with the society’s buildings surrounded by tight security and protesters rallying outside. The House saw 278 votes in favour and 59 votes against.

Speaking in Proposition were Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, Union President Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, Israeli-American activist Miko Peled, and Palestinian-American poet Susan Abulhawa. Speaking in Opposition were British broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti, British barrister Natasha Hausdorff, Arab-Israeli journalist Yousef Haddad, and spy Mosab Hassan Yousef. Yousef is the son of terrorist organisation Hamas’ founder who then defected to become a spy for Israeli intelligence. He has been criticised for his hatred of Islam.

Outside the society’s buildings, around two dozen pro-Palestine protesters rallied on St Michael’s Street, their chants audible from the chamber. Oxford Action for Palestine, which called the protest, wrote that its purpose is to show “Zionists are not welcome in Oxford”. A protester told Cherwell that their reason is twofold: to show solidarity with Palestinian speakers, and to stand against the Union’s platforming of speakers.

Speaking first in Proposition, El-Kurd said: “If this motion passes today, it means that this body is catching up to the moral clarity of the global majority. It is about time and about 70 years too late.” He called Zionism “irredeemable and indefensible”. Lastly, El-Kurd refers to Yousef’s work for the Israeli Defence Forces and said it “dishonours me to share a space with [Yousef]” before walking out of the chamber.

Opening for the Opposition, Sacerdoti argued that the Proposition “intended to inflame not inform” and called the motion itself “an outrage”. In middle of his speech, a member of the audience began heckling “you sick motherf***er” and “genocidal maniac” before being escorted out of the chamber. Sacerdoti continued to argue that each Gazan is receiving more food than the world average.

Osman-Mowafy spoke next for Proposition, framing the debate as one that “puts correct names on self evident truths”. He cited specific Gazan families, asking: “How many bullets do you need to kill one family? 335.” He also quoted Netanyahu saying “Gaza is a city of evil” and that “Gazans are animals”, whilst noting that 50% of Gazans are children. Some of the Opposition were chuckling, to which an audience member in the balcony asked: “What’s so funny?”

Next up in Opposition Haddad told the crowd: ‘‘If you are booing, I’m sorry to say it, but you are terrorist supporters”. Haddad cited Jews, Christians, and Arabs playing football together in Israel, how as an Arab-Israeli himself he gave commands to and was saved by Jewish soldiers, and that an Arab man heads the largest bank in Israel – all evidence against an apartheid, he said. He ended by shouting: “You’re losing! You’re losing the Israeli-Arab war! You’re losing everything!” Due to a lack of decorum, he was asked to leave by the Chair during members’ speeches, at which point he put on a T-shirt that read “your terrorist is dead” with a crossed-out face.

Speaking in Proposition, Peled described the terrorist attack carried out by Hamas on 7th October, 2023, as an act of “heroism”, which drew condemnation from the crowd.

Yousef opened by referring to his work stopping Hamas suicide bombers despite being the son of the terrorist organisation’s founder. He then turned to incendiary comments including “Palestinians are the most pathetic people on planet Earth”, which incited many Points of Orders over whether he should be removed from the chamber. In response Yousef said: “this House has been hijacked by Muslims.” He called Palestinians “a false identity” and said that “we [Arabs] will exist long after the Palestinian thugs who came to hijack our society”.

Final Proposition speaker Abulhawa began with a story: “‘When I was in Gaza I saw a little boy whose arms and part of his face had been blown off by a booby-trapped can of food.” She characterised her opponents as “invoking Holocaust and screaming Antisemitism” and said: “I came to speak directly to Zionists: we let you into our homes when your own countries turned you away. You killed and robbed and burned and looted our lives, you carved out our hearts.”

Near midnight, the last Opposition speaker Hausdorff took the stage. She said that Jewish students have been intimidated from attending the debate tonight and called it “a dark moment in the Oxford Union’s history”. In response to the alleged lack of historical and legal context tonight, she said “but I am here, so fear not, ladies and gentlemen” and goes on to argue indoctrination as the centre of this conflict. Hausdorff continued: “Genocide is a slur being alleged against the real victims of genocide in this case.”

1...394041...2,496Page 40 of 2,496

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley