Friday, May 2, 2025
Blog Page 420

Oxford University releases 2020 Admissions Report

0

Oxford University has released its Annual Admissions Statistical Report, showing progress in the numbers of students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, from state schools, and from Black and Ethnic Minority (BME) backgrounds. 

The University has moved UNIQ, the state school access programme, online. There will also be a virtual Open Day and Target Oxbridge 2020 will be online. 

Louise Richardson, Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, prefaces the report, saying: “The data presented clearly demonstrates steady progress towards diversifying the makeup of our student body.”

“Notwithstanding the major challenge of adapting to the constraints posed by the pandemic we fully intend to continue our progress towards ensuring that every talented, academically driven pupil in the country, wherever they come from, sees Oxford as a place for them.”

Caveats

Before a further review of the report, a few notes must be made:

  1. Any population-level statistics are drawn from the 2011 census
  2. International students are excluded from statistics on education, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity
  3. 6% of students choose not to disclose BME status on their UCAS applications
  4. The University notes in their ‘Gender’ section that the male/female distinction does not reflect the gender identity of students. Admissions statistics rely on data from UCAS, which only provides male/female options. 
  5. Disability statistics are dependent on declaration of such in a student’s UCAS application

OVERVIEW

The admittance rate for the 2019 cycle was 14.2%. Of those students, the University states that, from 2015 to 2019:

“The proportion from state schools rose from 55.6%1 to 62.3%.

The proportion identifying as Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) rose from 14.5% to 22.1%.

The proportion from socio-economically disadvantaged areas rose from 8.6% to 12.2%.

The proportion from areas of low progression to higher education rose from 10.8% to 14.0%.The proportion declaring a disability rose from 6.9% to 9.4%.

The proportion of women rose from 47.5% to 54.4%.”

The University’s full report can be found here. 

ETHNICITY  

Overall, 22.1% of admitted students are BAME, compared to a nationwide 18.3%. This is the first year the university has exceeded the national average. 

The representation of Black students is above 3% for the first time, rising from 2.6% in 2018 to 3.2% in 2019.

However, Cherwell finds that BME sub-categories are not in-line with national statistics. People of Asian or Mixed ethnicity are disproportionately represented. 

Dark blue: national statistics; Light blue: Oxford statistics 

Across courses, BME students are not admitted proportionally to their applications, except for in History & Politics, Music, and Modern Languages. BME students are disproportionately likely to apply for competitive subjects, with 27.2% of all BME applicants applying for Medicine and Law. 

Dark blue: BME students applied; Light blue: BME students admitted 

From the compilation of 2017-2019 admissions data, representative of the students currently resident in college, colleges ranged by 12.8 percentage points on their proportion of BME students, with Mansfield leading (26.6%) and Worcester trailing (13.8%). These are outliers, and the majority of colleges are in the high teens.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE

The proportion of students admitted from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds has increased and is proportionate to the number of students achieving AAA from those groups. 

The two most disadvantaged groups based on postcode (ACORN categories 4 and 5) has increased admissions to 12.2% of total intake, which is proportional to the 12.1% of students from these categories who achieve AAA or better at A-Level. 

The two most disadvantaged groups based on how likely students are to continue into higher education (POLAR quintiles 1 and 2) has also increased to 14.0% of total intake. This is a similar proportion to the 13.9% of students from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 who achieve AAA or better at A-Level. 

The proportion of students made offers from disadvantaged backgrounds who are then admitted is 76.2% based on ACORN 4 and 5 and 75.3% based on POLAR quintiles 1 and 2. This is lower than the overall rate of 84% of students with offers who are then admitted. 

Subjects with the lowest proportion of students from socio-economically disadvantaged areas are Classics, Geography, and Modern Languages – though subjects differ in ranking between the two measurements. 

Exeter, Somerville, and Christ Church are among the colleges with the lowest intake from disadvantaged areas. 

Mansfield tops the table for most accessed by students from less-advantaged areas, followed by Merton and Lady Margaret Hall.

SCHOOL TYPE

The University states that: “The proportion of state-school students admitted to Oxford has risen to 62.3% in 2019, having increased from 55.6% in 2015. This is the highest figure ever recorded.”

Notably, for the first time, all colleges admit over 50% of their students from state schools. Mansfield College has the highest proportion of state school applicants, at 94.0%. Christ Church and Queen’s have the lowest proportions, at 50.2% and 50.9% respectively. 

However, 71.6% of A*A*A or better grades are achieved by state school students, meaning the University’s 62.3% admission rate is not in proportion to the number of high achieving state-school students. 

There is also a disparity in offer and admission rates. State school students were made 64.5% of the offers for the 2019 admissions cycle. 81.6% of state school students who were made offers were then admitted, in comparison to 89.7% of independent school students. 

Classics has the lowest intake of state school students, at 28.6%, with Theology and Religion as the next lowest subject at 47.6%. 

The report notes that state school students are more likely to apply for the most oversubscribed subjects – E&M, Medicine, PPe, Law, and Mathematics – while independent school students are the most likely to apply for the least competitive courses. 

Cherwell finds that while the proportion of state school students accepted among UK domiciled students has increased substantially over the past few years, the absolute number of state school students has not changed much over the past 20 years. 

The number of state school students at Oxford peaked at 1671 in 2002, decreasing to 1404 in 2015, and reached 1557 in 2019. 

While the number of state school students applying has increased from about 5500 in 2002, to 6500 in 2009, to almost 9000 in 2019, the increase of state school intake has not been proportionate. As such, the state school proportion has not changed much. It was about 45% in 2009, and is 47% in 2019.

This is in comparison to a decrease in independent school students admitted, dropping from 38.9% to 28.7% in the last ten years.

This has been balanced by an overall increase in non-UK students admitted: from 454 in 2009 to 739 in 2018. Notably, in 2019 the number of EU students admitted decreased, and overall non-UK admissions dropped 694.

GENDER

The proportion of female students has steadily risen since 2017, when it rose above 50% for the first time. In 2019, 54.4% admitted students were female.  

Biomedical Sciences (77.3%) was the most female, while Maths and Computer Science (14.0%) had the fewest women.

Yellow: health sciences; Green: natural sciences; Blue: humanities

DISABILITY 

The university states that, “In 2019, 9.4% of admitted students had declared a disability on application, 2.5 percentage points higher than in 2015.”

From 2018-2019 the number of UK students with known disabilities admitted rose 0.2 percentage points. In contrast, in 2017-18 the number of students with known disabilities rose 2.2 percentage points.  

Oxford lags behind the UK university average in terms of the proportion of students admitted with known disabilities. The UK university data shows that 14.1% of admitted students declared a disability in 2017, higher than Oxford’s 9.4%. 

Over half of students (55.25%) with known disabilities admitted between 2017 and 2019 have either a learning difficulty (including dyspraxia, dyslexia, and ADHD) or a mental health condition. Only 20 of these 677 students use a wheelchair or have other mobility issues. 

 NATION AND REGION

One of the report’s main conclusions was that “UK-domiciled applicants are substantially more likely to receive an offer of a place to study at Oxford than students from outside the UK.” 

78.8% of admitted students were UK-domiciled. Of the remaining 21.2%, 7.1% are EU students and 14.1% from outside of the EU. 

The percentage of international students admitted to Oxford in 2019 is higher than the percentage for all UK universities in 2017, which sits at 16.1%.

This year brought a small increase in the number of domestic students, up from 77.7% in 2018. However it continues to represent a drop since 2015, in which 80.8% of students were based in the UK. The highest number of both overseas applications and admitted students was from China.

The report states: “Oxford does not operate quotas or targets around the nationality or domicile of students admitted to the University. The exception is Medicine, which is subject to a government restriction on the number of students with international fee status who can be admitted each year.”

Examining the geographical data of UK-domiciled applicants, the access report found that London and the South East made up 47.7% of applications 2017-19, as well as 49% of students admitted. 

Greater London has 18.8% of UK pupils with grades AAA+ or higher, but over the three years 2017-2019, 26.5% of the intake came from this region. Both the South East and South West regions were also overrepresented in the 2019 intake. 

Meanwhile, Northern Ireland, which has 4.6% of AAA+ pupils, only made up 0.8% of admitted students. Similarly, Yorkshire & the Humber has 6.4% of pupils with these top grades, but only represents 4.8% in admitted students at Oxford.

The full report is available here.

Image credit to Mike Peel/ Wikimedia Commons.

Comfort Films: Catching Fire

0

The end of Hilary term was chaotic – just a few days ago I’d been worrying about essays and pre-ing with friends, fully immersed in that infamous Oxford bubble, and then suddenly the once-distant coronavirus felt very real. My parents rushed down to pick me up and all at once it was over – I was home. And that very first evening back in my childhood bedroom, when it felt like the world I’d spent the last eight weeks living in had all come crashing down (okay, maybe a bit dramatic, but you get the point), there was no doubt in my mind about what to watch to self-soothe: I opened my laptop and sat back as the familiar opening of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire started to play.

This is not the first time I’ve found myself turning to Catching Fire as a “comfort film” – I’ve had it on repeat throughout exam seasons, went for it whenever the stress of sixth form started to be too much, and even put it on the evening after the death of a grandparent. Whenever the all too familiar ache of exhaustion starts to set in, when everything is spinning out of control, I know that a couple of hours set aside to rewatch the film will always bring me back to some sense of normality. And I realise how strange this sounds – how can a dystopian world of murderous spectator sports have any relevance to “normality”, let alone be comforting? Why, out of all the films out there, do I keep coming back to Catching Fire?

The answer lies in-between the gruesome action sequences and convoluted love triangles – that is, in the characters themselves. Because despite everything thrown at them, this film makes sure to stress that the characters are, at the end of the day, people. It offers a frank depiction of human emotion, of love and pain and anger and apathy. Despite their situation, these people don’t feel that different from us. They deal with their experiences and start to make it out the other side. Their struggle through difficulty offers hope, and it is that hope that keeps me returning time and time again.

I don’t know about you, but when I’m feeling overwhelmed the last thing I want to watch is something that pretends that the world is perfect. Catching Fire doesn’t do that. There’s something surprisingly relatable about the internal struggles laid out in this film – sure, its characters live lives worlds away from ours, but they undergo human experiences not too dissimilar from our own. When we watch Katniss paralysed by flashbacks, see her and Peeta endure the same recurring nightmare, or observe Haymitch drawn back to alcoholism, we see our world reflected back at us. And isn’t that the most comforting thing of all – to connect, to be reminded that we aren’t alone? 

It’s this relatability that also makes their later recovery all the more impactful – sure their romance is cheesy, but watching Katniss and Peeta fall in love despite the odds is not only delightfully heart-warming, but also reminds us that, even in a game designed to kill you, there’s always the chance for love, always a way through. A moment that will forever stick in my mind is when Peeta cuts open an oyster in the arena and finds a pearl, and hands that pearl to Katniss. In the midst of all the chaos, their love is growing – in even the darkest of places, there are these small moments of happiness, these pearls. If they can find a pearl in the arena, we too can pick ourselves up from rock bottom, no matter where we find ourselves.

You might be wondering why I’ve specifically chosen the second film in the series – it’s precisely because of its position in the storyline that I find it so comforting. This film marks the start of something bigger – something beyond the games. If the series is ultimately a story of revolution, then Catching Fire sees the people’s struggle properly begin, capturing the moment when the Districts start to come together, when the people stop accepting the existing state of affairs and start doing something about it. It shows ordinary people slowly realising that they have the power to enact something of huge significance. In a world where so much is beyond our control, to be reminded that things can and will get better, that our actions matter, is deeply reassuring. The film ends with Katniss slowly lifted up out of the arena – disorientated and exhausted yes, but on the way up nonetheless. Things are starting to change, and in those first murmurings of revolution, the overriding mood is one of hope.

Perhaps I’m reading too much into it – maybe the comfort of this film comes purely from its connection to my childhood, from the personal memories interwoven with the scenes over years of rewatching. The Hunger Games was certainly a childhood staple for many of us, and it now serves as a reminder of a time when we could lose ourselves in a story. Whatever it is, I always close my laptop with a sense of quiet calm, safe in the knowledge that time will keep on ticking just like the arena clock, and in that time new loves and new hopes will develop, pearls and promises of a better future.

“It could have been worse”: the danger zone of sexual harassment

0

TW: sexual harassment

There is a street outside my student flat that we call the ‘danger zone’. 

The appellation was created over a pot of linguine on another ordinary university night in. We were sitting in our kitchen giving accounts of our respective days. I mentioned that on the way home someone had shouted out of their car a vulgar comment about how my body looked in my jeans. This was greeted by a chorus of knowing scoffs: “Yeah, it seems particularly bad there”. This prompted my friends to relate their experiences on this particular stretch of road – a road we have to walk down every day to get to our college. A couple of days before someone had shouted something about my friend’s legs, apparently on display for his enjoyment rather than because it was a hot day. Although we felt uncomfortable, we all laughed about it; she quipped that to salivate over her legs was ridiculously out of date: “Legs aren’t even in these days.” If you’re going to objectify a part of my body, at least choose something currently in fashion. 

Laughing at these men felt like a way to subvert the feelings of powerlessness and littleness inherent in being the recipient of verbal harassment. None of us actually found it funny.

Whenever we got cat-called we would add another chapter to these ‘danger zone’ chronicles. One day a car was waiting for me a few hundred yards outside college. In broad daylight he drove slowly behind me, repeatedly crooning for me to ‘get in’. I told him to leave me alone: he called me a ‘bitch’. 

I’ve been catcalled since I was fourteen. When I was younger my friends and I used to find it hilarious when it happened to a group of us. I can see now that we were using humour to try and expunge uncomfortable implications. It was as if being found attractive by strangers driving past us on our way to a friend’s house was some perversely thrilling initiation into womanhood. We had grown up on a culture that teaches women to be grateful when they are found attractive by men. 

When I was seventeen I went to Romania to volunteer in a school with a group of girls from my sixth form. We were advised to take taxis rather than walk anywhere in the evenings. The local volunteers would sometimes get into the cars with us and translate what had been said on the drive. One day there were four of us squashed in the back: I could see our faces in the driver’s mirror like a line-up. I watched the driver point me out to our local friend and say things that made her roll her eyes. When we got out she raised an eyebrow – “Jesus, he really liked YOU, Anna.” A lot of the drivers did things like this; the girls made a kind of competition out of it, seeing who would receive the most attention. Despite the intense discomfort these interactions left me with, I remember being slightly envious of the girl who seemed to have ‘won’ in the end. She was very pretty.

When I was eighteen I went travelling with some friends. In typical sentimental fashion we compiled a number of lists to remember our times together –funny things that had happened, the best sights, our favourite places to eat. We had another list – one ranking the ‘creepiest’ places, informed by a tally of car horns, catcalls, or inappropriate comments made – as if the predatory behaviour of its male inhabitants was cemented in the city; as much a part of its landscape as its churches and riverside cafes. Making a list out of it was our way of trying to control it, extracting statistics from the situation rather than a deep sense of unease. But always the question remained: if we hadn’t been in a group of four, would that man have said or done more than he did? 

The following summer I worked in a small deli on the seafront. Most of the customers were lovely. But some – men – thought because I worked there they could say anything to me and I had to be nice about it. Dealing with inappropriate comments about my appearance was as much a part of the job as potting up olives and washing floors.

University seems to only spotlight such issues. We stopped even attempting to make light of the ‘danger zone’ after my friends were grabbed by a man waiting outside our student accommodation. We felt furious and powerless when a man filmed up my flatmate’s skirt for four minutes on her way to a lecture. He was eventually forcefully interrupted by a passer-by who saw what was happening. Despite his protests that it was the first time he’d ever done something like that, the police found dozens of recordings of other girls on his phone. This was just the first time he’d been caught. He begged my friend not to go to the police; he had a wife and kids. How could she ruin his life? The notion that he was responsible for his actions did not occur to him. Blame is displaced onto the woman; it is her fault for wearing a certain item of clothing, for looking at someone the wrong way, for being pretty, for having a body. 

He pleaded guilty. With so much evidence there could hardly be any dispute. He was sentenced to 19 days of unpaid work. In five years’ time they will remove his name from the Sex Offenders Register.

It might be easy for some to regard instances of catcalling as mere ‘harmless flirting’. But they are the product of this same fucked up ideology: the belief that a woman’s body is there for a man’s pleasure. But if I complain I am just being hysterical; I am just another woman who cannot take what you call a ‘compliment’.

The thing is: I love compliments. But the comments made to me and my friends on the street are not compliments. No one has ever applauded my brilliant work ethic on my way to a lecture; it is always how my body looks as I am walking there. I never get catcalled when I am walking with a man, and it occurs mostly when I am alone – surely this suggests that there is an inherent predatory nature to such comments: perceived vulnerability makes me an attractive target.

Implicit in every catcall is a recognition that my existence in your world is limited to how much voyeuristic pleasure you can derive from my body. You are reminding me that by leaving my home I am apparently consenting to being sexualised by total strangers. It is symptomatic of a wider culture whereby female existence can be seen as a medium for male gratification.

It is easy to dismiss the persistence of this culture. But the experience of so many women is a testament that it is alive and thriving. It is why students are cautioned against walking home alone. It is why we need consent workshops in Freshers’ Week, where we are told that one in seven university-age women experience serious sexual or physical assault during their time as a student. Given that harassment is likely to be underreported, given that this is only speaking of a short period of a woman’s life, and given all the whispered confidences of friends, this statistic feels like an understatement.

Normalising, accepting, dismissing smaller incidents like catcalling as just a minor inconvenience, an unfortunate part of life, is a dangerous evasion. If you can comment freely on my body from a car window, you can objectify me in other ways. If I am there for you to look at, then I am there for you to touch. Strangers do not need to touch my lower back to move past me in a club. Pinching me from behind is harassment: the fact that you do it in ‘ATIK’ should not disguise it. Consent is not determined by location.

Many of us have been conditioned by these ‘minor’, but frequent, incidents into a complicity of silence – a belief that ‘it’s just what happens’, ‘it’s not that big of a deal’. To complain is to risk being seen as over-sensitive, maybe even attention-seeking.

When a man twice my age told me I was a ‘slut’ in Sainsbury’s because I was wearing a skirt, I felt stupid for feeling so shaken by it. It was three in the afternoon and I was trying to pick up some groceries. I left with only half my shopping. I have not worn that skirt since. 

There is a popular food place that I used to go to with my friends after a night out. One time a security guard, much older and bigger than me, came and sat with me while I waited alone for the others. He started asking me explicit questions about my sex life, and I went quiet, feeling that familiar deep discomfort spread across my skin – a skin which suddenly felt all wrong for being exposed. As I was leaving he whispered something to his colleague, who then came up to me: “He wants your number”. We go to a different place for our chips now. 

There is a list in my head of places I no longer feel comfortable going to. I know my friends have similar lists. Oxford is scattered with landmarks – not just pretty buildings, but places where things have happened. We all follow the same geographical map but an emotional map is different for everyone. Every time I pass the window of my first year room I tell myself not to look up.

These kinds of incidents are just a minute proportion of the stories millions of women accumulate throughout their lives. There are other stories, too. Many are too painful to speak of. And many of them risk being dismissed or disputed if they are uttered. If we dismiss women who feel threatened by ‘minor’ incidents, we are training women to invalidate their feelings when worse things happen. If we teach girls that things like catcalling are compliments rather than symptoms of a system that harms, distorts and diminishes the problems women face, we are failing to protect them. We are even teaching them to be grateful for it. We are only making it easier for far more serious incidents to be diminished. 

Inside the college community, incidents of harassment and assault face a microclimate of conditions which often inadvertently benefit the offender. Addressing the inappropriate, or predatory, behaviour of students can feel uncomfortable for those in the group. Accountability is often sacrificed for the sake of avoiding awkwardness. 

For the most part I have focused on experiences with men deemed ‘strangers’. But be under no illusion; harassment is not limited to these anonymous individuals. For many, talking about experiences inside college is just even harder. You face not only sexual politics, but the politics of a friendship group, of a college community. There is a silent pressure to ‘smooth things over’, to avoid ‘overreacting’.

So many of us have heard our friends say: ‘It could have been worse’. As if it is our responsibility to calibrate correctly our own sense of fury onto a scale that is always moving, and never on our side. The sentence is perhaps an effort to rationalise intense and uncontrollable feelings. But I can’t help but feel it is a product of a society that refuses to admit there is something wrong with the way it treats the people is has a duty to protect. In September 2019, The Guardian reported that ‘Rape complainants who come forward to the police have less of a chance of seeing their case pursued and their attacker convicted in court than they did 10 years ago’. In Hampshire, for example, in 2019 for every 62 recorded rapes there was one conviction.

With problems at all levels of response – from the justice system to our closer personal communities, that ‘one in seven’ statistic we hear about in our Freshers’ workshop becomes less of a statistic, and more of a prophecy.

OPINION: History tells us that the Conservatives’ PR switch is destined for failure

0

In 2015, the Conservatives under David Cameron ran a relentlessly negative election campaign which made tedium an art. Billboards proclaimed: “A Recovering Economy” and depicted a large wrecking ball emblazoned with the tagline: “Don’t Let Labour Wreck It.” Infamously, there were warnings of “Chaos with Ed Miliband.” Only a year later, the Conservatives delivered Brexit, the most radical event of recent British political history. And yet May’s promise in 2017 was even more boring than Cameron’s. “Strong and stable” did not work as well, leading to a surprise advance for Corbyn’s Labour, the radical option. But the Tories’ lacklustre campaign showed that, even as they ripped apart the country, they wanted to stress an idea of continuity and, above all, competence.

That all feels like 100 years ago now, and the contrast with the Tories of today is telling and important. A botched response to Covid-19 and a government hungry to open up the country despite the risks of easing lockdown too early reveal a government of incompetents who, unlike Theresa May’s administration, are blasé about their inability to rule and reckless in their pursuit of risk. How did we get here?

For most of their modern existence, the Conservatives have been the natural party of government. The Tories have overseen long periods of stable and stodgy government many times in the past, under managerial leaders like Harold Macmillan and Stanley Baldwin. The British political cycle, for much of our democratic history, has been characterised by long periods of Tory management interspersed with governments of progressive change. This dynamic has shaped the Tories’ self-image. Even when the Tories enact sweeping reforms they are sold to the electorate under the guise of prudent moderation.

This ongoing PR project has been helped at times by an extreme and disorganised Labour party. Thatcher was the status quo when opposed by Michael Foot, and Jeremy Corbyn has a special gift for making practically anyone else seem comfortable and familiar. Nonetheless, this Tory brand of no-nonsense competence has successfully reinforced public perceptions in and of itself. The Conservatives have for decades played to their strengths. They know that most voters in the past did not look to them as the inspiring choice or as a chance to shake up the system. But they could count on angst about dangerous spending and weak defence. The fact that those like Corbyn have deserved these charges should not obscure the fact that at other times, the Tories have tried the same old tricks on fairly safe Labour leaders. Sometimes it has been a laughable flop. Nobody was fooled by warnings of: “New Labour: New Danger.” At other times, though, it has worked well. For example, in 2015, Middle England were convinced of the risks of “Red Ed” very easily.

Political changes can take a long time to come to the surface. The brazen disregard for their time-honoured public image which this Conservative Party is demonstrating now is the product of 30+ years of reinvention. Each generation of Tories since Thatcher has learned the benefits and allurements of acting the daring maverick. The right-wing Eurosceptic backbench rebels of the 1990s, John Major’s “bastards,” showed their fellow Tories the outsized gains available to those holding extreme positions and refusing to compromise for the sake of plausibility and possibility. Those rebels were the ideological grandparents of the Brexiteers, like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, whose taste of insurgency and anti-establishment rhetoric in the referendum campaign made addicts of them.

The addiction for the populist and the risky spread, contaminating the whole party. The shock result of 2016 set alight the ideological firewood that has been building for decades. Suddenly, the bona fides of Tory loyalty were not about being sensible. The ‘lunatics’ took over the asylum, and installed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

Corbyn and the promise to “Get Brexit Done” in 2019 meant that the full ramifications of this sea-change were not fully recognised. The imposition of a global pandemic on Johnson’s plans have brought it to the forefront. It is now that we see a Tory administration whose top echelons are peopled by the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg. Rees-Mogg clamours to send parliament back to normal despite the concerns of MPs, while Dominic Cummings, the ultimate right-wing revolutionary, obeys one set of rules and imposes another on the rest.

The result has not just been substantive in policy terms but damaging in political ones. The rise in polls of Keir Starmer’s unthreatening Labour shows that the public have discerned this shift in the Conservatives and are no longer in the mood for it. It remains to be seen if Boris Johnson, our most illustrious political arsonist, will find himself swept away by the fire he encouraged in his own party.

The Sick Worm

O Worm, thou art sick,
Thy earthy tendrils long to prick
The burgeoning bud.
You may flourish in a flower,
A site of pleasure, sickly plucked.
That won’t wither her sweet power;
May Venus’ jaw snap shut thy luck.
That crimson bed you burrowed in,
Attacked by worms who came before,
Mocks mortal flesh and mortifies
Those tempted by such sensuous gore.

KitKat

All of me/Why not take all of me/Can’t you see/I’m no good without you/Take my lips/I want to loose them/Take my arms/I’ll never use them

He cut and diced in a white hat
She fetched and carried what he diced and cut
He fed her, seeing red at her clumsy hands on busy nights.
Once a week, she begged the room to take her and the room ate her up
He did not hover above, he did not lie below, but he wore that stupidly clean white hat.
He called her KitKat.

He said he wants two of his fat, oily bars in her smart, fleshy mouth
KitKat half smiles, her insides hollowed out by that sick joke.

She was paid, wordless, pressed against, still
ridden by blameless guilt.
Lying down like an upset wine bottle,
smeared across the floor
by men, everywhere, in white hats.

Image credit: Ky via Flickr, CC 2.0; image has been cropped

cry, tears

cry the way you cry when you
reach the shore again, cry the way
the way, ouch
cry the way you cry then

break the way a cracker
breaks announcing another
cycle of cold warm hot water
hot warm cold, the latter
and the former
cry the way
only in
the way
you cry then

like a wave of
rain cry like satur
ated pools of
pulsating swimm
ing seas

record it in the hours
each and ever
each
and every
everyone of them

cry like that like the way
you smash the hour
with the hurricane
of tears spread
on the edge of
every glass
stained
cried uncried
any ever every
other cry notice
able like a passer
by in a sea of people

feeling intact
feeling ether
eal

atrocity, my
tears
don’t cry without me

Ventilators Aren’t The Miracle Machines We Prayed For

In the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic, ventilators – or the sparsity thereof – caused a great deal of distress to healthcare professionals, politicians, and the British people. The bulk acquisition of these devices became a priority for the floundering government, wanting to reassure its citizens that they would have access to this seemingly life-saving technology should they need it. Indeed, news reports often showed ICUs packed with intubated patients being kept alive by the rhythmic propulsion of air into their lungs, which had failed to function unassisted. It seemed as though the number of ventilators per capita was an important predictor of a nation’s ability to tackle this crisis. But then, it all changed.

NHS reports soon showed that ventilated patients were unusually likely to die, with two-thirds of them not making it out of the ICU alive. Recently, doctors have refrained from using these machines, noting better patient outcomes. Ventilators aren’t entirely useless for the treatment of coronavirus-induced respiratory distress, but they offer diminishing returns as they don’t address the other important factor that determines pulmonary gas exchange: blood flow.

Keeping appropriate levels of oxygen in the blood – a big issue for acutely-ill COVID-19 patients – involves the close matching of ventilation (air flow) to perfusion (blood flow) in the individual air sacs of the lungs, the alveoli. From the beginning of this crisis, a huge focus was placed on ventilating patients who were struggling to breathe by themselves. Mechanical ventilators appeared to be absolutely essential in treating end-stage COVID-19 patients on ICUs. Whilst the ventilatory aspect was overwhelmingly addressed, perfusion of the lungs was mostly ignored. There is little benefit in ventilating a lung that is not well perfused – extra oxygen cannot be ‘picked up’ by the blood and carried to the rest of the body. Consider a train (the blood) coming into a station (the lung; or more specifically, one of its many alveoli): cramming the station’s platform with passengers (oxygen) is no good if the train is unable to reach the platform due to broken tracks.

In fact, autopsies have shown COVID-19 lungs to be full of clots (broken tracks), occluding alveolar blood flow and making the extra ventilation somewhat useless. These are presumably caused by inflammation of blood vessels and enhanced clotting pathways. Recent findings indicate that micro-clots are nine times as prevalent in COVID-19 lungs as in those of patients who succumbed to the flu. Pathologists in Italy started properly discovering these blockages around mid-March, by which point the disease had already ravaged through the country; only ten days earlier, ethical guidelines given to Italian doctors stated it may be necessary to withdraw care from critical patients, prioritising those with a better chance of survival. Considering the virus was so new and misunderstood, it seems surprising that post-mortem studies weren’t carried out sooner.

Naturally, anti-clotting drugs – anticoagulants – were suggested as a potential treatment for those affected by the disease. However, the medical community took too long to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention. There are, finally, ongoing trials aiming to assess just how beneficial this treatment could be. These show mixed results, but the consensus is that a higher level of anticoagulation is probably required for COVID-19 patients, compared to the standard dose that is traditionally administered on the ICU. A lot of these studies focus on advanced cases, where it is potentially too late as clots have already formed. At the end of April, the NHS commissioned a group of experts to provide clinical guidance on the use of anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients. The NHS is yet to release this guidance to its clinicians.

Although the effect of the novel coronavirus on the body is highly complex and multi-faceted, the initial rush to ventilate deteriorating patients may well have overshadowed other important aspects of the virus’ attack mechanism. How many more lives could have been saved without the blind focus on ventilators?

Image attribution: https://pixabay.com/photos/hospital-bed-doctor-surgery-1802679/

The Road to Michaelmas, What Can We Expect?

0

The University of Oxford has been clear in their latest communication to students: they hope to resume in-person teaching for small groups and tutorials in Michaelmas term.  For many this is welcome news, and certainly there are few amongst us who don’t yearn for life to return to normal, to be able to go for a coffee or a pint in the city centre, or return to cosy research seminars, laboratories, and libraries.  But for many returning students and offer-holders, the decision over whether to accept their place, or return to Oxford, is difficult and stressful to make with little or no information.  It is in the University’s and individual colleges’ best interest to provide us with clear guidance on how they are preparing, and what their red lines will be.

It is great to see Oxford’s acknowledgement that vulnerable, and some international students, will be unable to attend in person this autumn, and the promise that they can attend online. However, it would be helpful to see how that would work, such as for final year and graduate seminars. We also have to be very aware that many of the tutors fall into the vulnerable category and have their own concerns about the return to in-person teaching. 

Not enough information has been provided to make students, particularly non-UK, feel comfortable in their decision to attend/return. International students have several levels of logistical challenges to attending, including uncertainty around what happens in the case of another lockdown, concerns about the financial costs of additional travel or accommodation if this occurs, questions of whether they can book a flight, if they will have to quarantine upon arriving, and uncertainty around if they can even get a visa. 

Many are calling for all classes to be offered online.  We all know that much of what Oxford offers is not available over Teams, and that as wonderful as it is that the Bodleian has risen to the occasion, there are still far more works not available digitally than are.  Online is far from ideal, but we need to be realistic about the likelihood that at least part of the year will require online learning.  For international students, who make up 40% of the student body, the discussion of value, risk, and alternatives is ongoing.  Within a month, international students will have to decide whether to commit to coming to Oxford.  The University needs to let them know now what will be in place to help them no matter what happens. 

This is not just about international students though – the quarantine issue will be relevant to all of us.  When tracking and tracing is at full capacity, it is inevitable that multiple students in college accommodation will need to self-isolate.  And since anyone that came into close contact with an infected student will probably need to isolate for two weeks, that conceivably means their seminars will have to go online for that period as well. Since nobody can know what the UK, or the world, will look like in 3 months, obviously no promises can be made.  But clarity around what it would look like in the worst-case scenario, and how a likely second wave will be handled, could allow students to at least make a more informed decision. Oxford is understandably trying to retain as many students as possible.  But by not providing information on the plans and procedures that will be implemented, the University is creating distrust, worry, and frustration. 

It will also be important for colleges, in particular, to set expectations ahead of time, including the fact that most gatherings will not be allowed, and that likely includes common rooms, college bars, and hall, which the University is now insinuating will be open.  If that is not possible (very likely), what alternatives will be put in place for feeding students, especially those that live in college?  And what will they do, alongside the JCR/MCRs, to foster the collegial relationships that are such a valued part of the Oxford experience, and which provide invaluable welfare support?

There are several crucial questions which I believe Oxford and its member colleges need to address to help all students feel safe and confident in their ability to return.  Rather than the current communication, which is based on a hoped-for best-case scenario, we need to understand their red lines.  These include (and this is far from exhaustive):

  1. What will the situation in the UK have to look like for colleges to reopen for accommodation, and for colleges and faculties to return to small class teaching?  Conversely, what will be the criteria for closing again? 
  2. What plans will be in place for international students, those who become sick, or those who have been contacted as part of the track-and-trace scheme, to allow them to quarantine, especially if they are in college accommodation? 
  3. Will they be able to offer accommodation and catering to students that are unable to leave Oxford because of travel restrictions or familial circumstances? 
  4. How do they intend to encourage and enforce social distancing and isolation in colleges and university buildings?  And how large a role are they prepared to play in discouraging or punishing risky or unauthorised behavior outside official buildings?

I am writing this as a postgrad member of the University, an offer-holder, and an international student.  But I am also a year-round resident in Oxford, and have heard from neighbours and others in the community that they are worried about the return of students, with the increase of risky contact as Oxford’s narrow streets become crowded again.  Without making this a town vs gown, or an old vs young issue, we need to recognize that the student population has a significant presence in the community, and that whilst people in their 20s appear to have a lower risk of contracting a life-threatening case of COVID-19, those they interact with are often more vulnerable.  For this reason as well as the safety and health of its own student body, I would encourage Oxford to implement a COVID-19 code of conduct for students, requiring adherence to government and public health guidelines, with consequences for those who refuse to follow it.

In many ways we were lucky that the government-imposed lockdown came when it did this spring at the end of Hilary, a time when it was easy to pause classes, move students out of accommodation, and close facilities relatively quickly.  Presumably, Oxford is actively preparing in case that is required again.  We are less than three months away from pre-session courses, and many international students may need to arrive before that for quarantine.  At this point, colleges are still trying to work out how current students can return to collect their personal belongings safely, with pre-booked slots, social distancing, and hygiene guidelines in place.  Imagining that the situation will have changed enough that thousands of students can move into close quarters in late September feels like wishful thinking. 

Oxford, with its world-leading epidemiologists, scientists, and medical experts, is in a better position than many to anticipate and prepare for likely scenarios.  We should be taking the government’s guidance as a baseline, and then creating our own policy around what most scientists are suggesting is a probable second wave.  Rather than doing the minimum, the governors should use an abundance of caution in re-opening school and college facilities, in order to protect their students, but also to protect their future earnings and reputation from the potential devastation of being behind the curve.  We should, in other words, be leaders.

COVID-19 will still be a considerable concern when thousands of students are currently expected to return in October.  It will have an inevitable and serious impact on the next school year, but with proper planning, flexibility, and good communication, we should be able to weather this, not unlike the other plagues and crises Oxford has seen in its 900 year history. The best thing the University can do to ensure their students feel confident enough to return this autumn is be transparent about the plans in place as soon as possible.

Fresh old stuff that hurts in the right places

0

The outcry was big when Edward Colston went for a swim. This is against history! This will make us forget, not reflect! But will it? A new kind of, yes, period drama suggests otherwise. With its own retelling of history, toppling its own statues, it is unashamedly presentist. Like Rhodes Must Fall it forces us to rethink what we want from the past, and to acknowledge that, in important ways, we’re bound to look at what was from the point of view of what is.

From Lady Macbeth to The Favourite, The Nightingale, and most recently The Great: all of these — sometimes comically, sometimes distressingly — offer a take on history different from what cinema audiences (or lockdown couch potatoes) would expect of films and shows set in seventeen-hundred-something. Their unorthodoxy has put a candidly impertinent question-mark after the word “history.” Is that still period drama?

In 2016 director William Oldroyd gave us Lady Macbeth, starring a captivating Florence Pugh in the lead. This is a dark, rural Victorian-era tale (loosely based on the 1865 Nikolai Leskov novella, adapted for the screen by Alice Birch) set in the claustrophobic setting of an oppressive, loveless marriage. What stuck, apart from a range of arresting character portraits and performances, was that — as Guardian reviewer Steven Rose put it — there were “practically more characters of colour in Lady Macbeth than there are in all the Austens, Dickenses and Downtons put together.” It wasn’t long before the matter went from observation to “controversy.” Was this historically accurate? Was it not deviating too far from the original text?

As usual, a closer look served as a gentle reminder of the fact that, very much to the contrary, Downton Abbey and co had frankly tended to systematically whitewash. Amma Asante’s 2013 Belle had of course already proven what serious period drama centring on black history can look like. But the reception of the — in this regard — much less ambitious Lady Macbeth, three years later, revealed how historical accuracy could serve as a proxy for prejudice against adding in supposed “unlikely” figures — and how the white normality of the Julian Fellowes universe was still stuck in cultural imagination.

Whitewashed history tends to go unnoticed because most audiences fall for the comfortable option of assuming that “that’s just what it was like back then.” So Lady Macbeth’s screenplay and casting did that for us: it offered proof of the alternative, but also a refreshing take on the dusty cottage industry — pace Colin Firth’s irresistible Mr.-Darcy-stare in Pride and Prejudice — of period drama. It seemed to ask: why don’t we just do it this way? Why does the genre have to be true to what was its own version of history all along?

An own version of history indeed. What Lady Macbeth hinted at, 2018’s The Favourite took to another level. We’re in early 18th century this time around, but this is no Joe Wright but a Yorgos Lanthimos. Set in an era in which people would do a lot for the privilege of attending a pineapple tasting, a magisterial Olivia Colman demonstrates to her audience that a serious absence of masculine ego works fantastically well. This wryly eccentric drama, complete with duck racing and ridiculously sumptuous palace life, but also an above-average amount of love for rodents and women, sets a whole other tone.

But then, yet again, there was good old Lord Dusty MacBookshelf. This time debate ensued on whether Queen Anne’s lesbianism depicted in The Favourite was true to the book. So? Ophelia Field, writing for the New Statesman, put the chatter to rest. While “there is no historical evidence for such carnal pleasures having been enjoyed,” she writes, “there is no way to rule them out categorically and that is the beauty of a fictionalisation.” But, a pretty awesome dance-off scene aside, the film does more than fictionalise by filling in the gaps of history-writing: “Lesbian love affairs leave notoriously fewer traces – such as illegitimate bastard children – on the historical bedsheets,” Field writes. And this is crucial: The Favourite may have messed with the chronicler’s quill, but it also exposed that which took place but simply less so in the diaries of men: the life of women.

Olivia Coleman and Emma Stone in The Favourite.

In 2019 another smashing flick brought a rarely-told story to the big screen. But The Nightingale was not funny. In fact it was one of those films you may have walked out of because you just couldn’t handle it — though not because it wasn’t an excellent production. The Nightingale is excellent, but in a grim, exacting way. Jennifer Kent, who previously brought us the slightly less pointed The Babadook, takes us to a place I must confess I’ve never ever seen filmed: 19th century Tasmania, then still known as penal colony Van Diemen’s Land. A magnificent duo of Aisling Franciosi and Baykali Ganambarr in the lead, alongside a Sam Claflin so frightening you forget to breathe, perform an intense struggle that’s both a powerfully interpretive and symbolic. The Nightingale is an in-your-face reckless portrayal of Australia’s brutal colonial history, arrestingly alive to gender, race, and colonial identities.

With The Nightingale the issue is slightly different than with The Favourite: historical accuracy is not taken more or less loosely for comical effect, but to allow the film to weave the brutal shock of colonial reality into the story of a female ex-convict taking revenge on her oppressors. This is historical fiction, not a bending of details or a filling in of gaps. And still: like The Favourite, this is history that makes us think and feel — and its exaggerations, inventions, and spins are key to that.

Finally, one more historically crazy accurate production: The Great. Written by The Favourite’s Tony McNamara together with Vanessa Alexander, this 2020 Hulu mini-series starring Elle Fanning as Catherine the Great and Nicholas Hoult (the boy from About a Boy) as Emperor Peter III of Russia nails it from minute one. This self-styled “occasionally true story” made lockdown a bit more bearable.

In it, we follow the story of Catherine who leaves her native Germany to marry Emperor Peter. Catherine had always wanted a bear for a pet, but Peter cares more about shooting “fucking ducks” than respecting women’s wishes. Although certainly less well-paced than The Favourite, sometimes indeed coming across as its “watered-down distillation”,and honestly a bit heavy on the vulgarisms, The Great still passes on the heirloom of period drama that makes you stop and wonder why the occasionally untrue bits still resonate. As McNamara explained his motivation contra period drama: “If I have to watch people tie their shoes with ribbons, I want to put a gun to my head. I think that was the thing.”

There is a theme in all this. Whether hilarious or sad, uncomfortable or scary, what Lady Macbeth, The Favourite, The Nightingale, and The Great all have in common is that none of them even try to make us relive an authentic version of the past. They make it obvious that they’ll disappoint that notion: but what they offer in its stead might well be richer. They amplify silenced voices, and they visualise what it looks like when present and past engage in conversation. They make us laugh, puzzle us, frighten us precisely where they go off record: where they remind us that it is inevitably from the present that we’re bound to look at the past. It’s as if in these portrayals the past were mocking the present, exposing its point of view by staring right back at us.

While Rhodes Must Fall aims to rectify inaccurate representations of an imperial, racist past, the point of the new period drama is a different one. Where the former intends to remove distortions, the latter wants to “distort back”. But they have something crucial in common: they challenge and unsettle collective memory from the point of view of the present. They both propose new ways of looking at the old and — the past as we chose to see it looking back at us — old ways of looking at the new.  Both seriously engage with history in order to make a point that has always mattered — but that needs to be made again today.