Monday 7th July 2025
Blog Page 432

A Fresher’s Guide to Oxford Drama

Jaya Rana
-
0
A Fresher’s Guide to Oxford Drama

The theatre scene in Oxford is, upon first glance, daunting to say the least. As a Fresher, it feels like you’re on the outside looking in at a tight knit group of friends, who all seem to effortlessly understand the ins and outs of it all. You’ll see the same faces in production after production and start to fear that you have no chance of getting involved. This is simply untrue. While there is an established thespian community at Oxford, it is by no means exclusive, and operates with a real ‘fake it til you make it’ mentality. Everyone I have spoken to about drama here has said they feel the same – everyone feels on the outside, until they don’t anymore. 

Sitting outside an audition room trying not to, but inevitably, eavesdropping on the auditionee before you is a nerve wracking experience. For some reason unknown to me, other student’s auditions always seem perfect when you’re hearing them from the other side of the door. “Oh my goodness, she’s amazing, I have no chance”, “I can barely hold a tune and he has perfect pitch”, and “did she just say she’s already been in three shows this term?!” are thoughts that have crossed my mind many a time, and will probably cross yours too. Imposter syndrome is a prevailing issue at Oxford in general, and in the theatre community it’s just as dominant; everyone seems more qualified. 

Something you must keep in mind is that, while of course talent is one decision-making factor in auditions, some of the others are rather arbitrary. I only truly realised this when I was on the other side of the process, and was auditioning people for a piece I was directing. I’d just watched ten absolutely brilliant auditions, and I found myself having to resort to the tiniest deciding factors, like going for someone who was slightly shorter or slightly younger-looking, because it better suited the role. It dawned on me then that not getting a part doesn’t mean you’re not a good actor. The competition here is stiff, and there are so many talented people, but, as I was told by a second year, “if you just keep auditioning, you will get a part sooner or later”. I took this advice and went to audition after audition in Michaelmas to no avail – but just when it was starting to really get me down, I was offered three roles on the same day. And that, I would say, is my biggest piece of advice – (almost) in the words of Finding Nemo’s Dory, just keep auditioning just keep auditioning!

Now for the practicalities: the OUDS (Oxford University Dramatic Society) website is where you’ll find audition sign-ups for all of the shows in Oxford. There are different scales of shows – from garden plays and college productions to the Pilch and BT (which are relatively small spaces) to the Keble O’Reilly or, every Oxford actor’s dream, the Playhouse. I’d recommend checking the site regularly to find new shows you may want to get involved in (and snap up a good audition slot so you’re not left with a 9am!). It’s helpful to have a Shakespearean and a modern monologue memorised to use for every audition – there’s nothing worse than frantically cramming lines just before you walk in. If you want to be extra prepared, have two modern monologues, a serious one and a comedic one; this should cover you for pretty much all auditions. Some auditions don’t even require memorisation, but it certainly helps. With the Shakespeare, it’s important to try to avoid the clichés; the director’s will have heard “out damned spot!” and “all the world’s a stage” a million times – set yourself apart! Beyond that, try to turn up to auditions early. There’s nothing worse than awkwardly rushing in late, having got lost in the depths of Worcester trying to find the audition room right at the back. 

Something important to realise before you start auditioning for shows is that being in a production is a huge time commitment. For the few weeks surrounding a show you’re part of, expect to effectively halt most of your other extra-curricular commitments, and also sacrifice quite a few nights out. These weeks usually consist of long hours of rehearsals, squeezing in work, and, most importantly, sleep. By no means do I WANT to put you off auditioning for shows –  just be aware of the workload you’re signing up for. 

But despite the early mornings and late nights, the nerve-wracking auditions and the relentless rejections, being in a show at Oxford is truly wonderful. There is nothing quite like feeling the warmth of the spotlight on your face, and the adrenaline rush of a great performance. Also, if anything, the mere experience of auditioning teaches you so much – getting used to rejection is an important skill (one which will definitely put you in good stead for tutorials!). The friends you’ll make in a production are unlike any other, and regardless of past experience I really urge you to give it a go. Drama has been a huge part of my first year here, and I couldn’t recommend getting involved more.

Keble College under pressure to reverse admissions decision

Eleanor Ruxton and David Alexander
-
0
Keble College under pressure to reverse admissions decision

After students and alumni pressed Keble College to admit all students regardless of A Level results, the College is considering accommodation arrangements to increase their capacity.

On August 15th, Keble issued a statement that they were “not able to accept every offer holder”. Since then, Keble’s JCR President and a team of current students and alumni have written a letter to the College suggesting several alternative proposals for the accommodation of those offer holders who were not accepted. The JCR President has explained more in a statement posted to the students’ Facebook group.

The College has expressed interest in one of the proposals, asking a group of “up to 12” second or third year students to voluntarily move out of college into private accommodation for the coming academic year. 

The JCR President has warned that “there will be some short term uncertainty with regards to accommodation for those who volunteer”. Whilst no guarantee has been given, “college anticipates they will be able to find accommodation for those 2nd and 3rd years that do help out in this situation.”

The JCR President has described this as a “very practical solution to the problem” that will remove the need for appeals, resits or deferred entry and allow those “who were rejected on the grounds of capacity” to study at Keble in 2020/21. 

Students have been encouraged to volunteer before the College’s academic committee meets tomorrow morning. The JCR President explains this “would really help put forward a robust case to admit all Keble offer holders this academic year.”

These proposals come after significant backlash from the student community, both over the rescinding of offers and the College’s statement explaining its position. 

In its statement earlier this weekend, the College stated it was aware “how the method of allocating grades without actual examinations would systematically disadvantage students from schools and neighbourhoods with less history of sending people to Oxbridge.”

However Keble argued that it had done all it could to accommodate these circumstances, stating that more offer holders than usual had met the necessary conditions. Noting how “Oxford revised the guidelines on clemency” to give “more even weight to indicators of social disadvantage”, the College argued it scrutinised cases on an individual basis, but was ultimately limited by available space. “The more students we admit this year,” the statement said, “the fewer we will be able to admit next year and the year after.” 

The College is preparing to welcome a large and diverse cohort in October, stating “more offers were made to, and more students will come from, under-represented and/or disadvantaged neighbourhoods.”  

This year, 70% of Keble’s undergraduate offers to UK applicants were given to students from state schools.

The College claims it will welcome those students who are successful in the appeal process, and intends to exercise sympathy when processing the applications of those taking their exams this autumn.  

The statement followed growing pressure on the College to re-think its decision. Over 6,000 people have signed a petition calling for Oxford to reverse its decision to rescind offers to “state school ‘near misses’”. 

The creator of this petition had her offer to read Geography at Keble College rescinded, after her results were downgraded from A*A*A* to AAA. She has expressed her frustration at the University for apparently not considering her background in its decision-making process.

The petition prompted an outpouring of support from the Keble College community, including a number of alumni. 

An Open Letter from Keble alumni to the College has been published on Facebook. Responding to this petition, the letter called on the College to disregard the grades assigned by Ofqual and to “make a firm statement of support for those students unfairly disadvantaged by this national moderation process” and to “offer them places to study.”

The letter argues that Ofqual’s moderation process was flawed and has “entrenched systematic bias against students from lower performing schools and larger class sizes, regardless of individual ability.” Much more reliable as an indicator of ability, suggests the letter, is the admissions tests and interviews that former offer holders have already succeeded in.

Keble’s decision to rescind some offers has been particularly disappointing due to the extensive efforts made by Keble staff, students, and alumni to widen access through schemes like Keble At Large. The authors of the letter believe that rescinding offers will “totally undermine” the progress made by these projects.

Speaking to Cherwell, President of Keble At Large and JCR Access and Academic Affairs Officer, Busola Femi-Gureje, has described the University’s decision as the “antithesis of the message promoted by access schemes and initiatives” due to its reliance on a “biased” algorithm that appears to disregard the academic achievement of students in disadvantaged areas. 

She stated “the situation this year feels even more unfair than previous years as students didn’t even get to sit the exams that resulted in them missing their grades.”

Being dissatisfied with the moderated grades is not grounds for an appeal under Ofqual guidelines. At the moment it is assumed that dissatisfied students will have to pay to ‘re-sit’ exams if they want to improve their grades.

Femi-Gureje has identified this as a “huge access issue”, warning about the unaffordable cost of re-sits. She adds, “Whilst it is not the fault of the University that the grading system is so flawed, this doesn’t really give much solace to those who have had to bear the brunt of its failures.” There are calls for the University to do more to support exceptional students and for greater transparency in the decision-making process. 

Keble’s academic committee will meet tomorrow to further discuss the issue.

Keble College and Keble JCR President have been contacted for comment.

Admissions 2020: How has each college responded?

David Tritsch
-
0
Admissions 2020: How has each college responded?

Update 18/08/2020: Following the government’s announcement that A-Level results will be based on teacher’s Centre Assessed Grades, the University has announced it will honour the offers of all candidates whose CAG meets their conditional offer (excluding courses with externally determined caps). The statements and policies listed below are college-specific and were last updated before the University’s announcement.

Following pressure on the University to admit offer-holders who missed their grades, a majority of undergraduate colleges have released statements on their admissions policies this year. This article will be updated as colleges release and revise statements. A list of updates, in the order in which they were made as new information became available, can be found at the bottom of the page.

This year, almost 40% of teachers’ recommended English A-level results were initially downgraded, following the replacement of exams with a standardisation algorithm that used teachers’ assessments and schools’ results history. Analysis has shown that students from state comprehensive schools with large class sizes were hit the hardest by the algorithm.

The University has stated that “over half of students who missed their offers have now been admitted” and confirmed that “[they] have been more lenient with students from UK state schools who missed their offer.”

In the face of a renewed call from the Oxford SU for the university to honour all offers given to UK A-Level students following the government reversal on Monday afternoon, individual colleges continue to differ substantially in their responses:

Admitting all UK offer-holders

Worcester College was the first college to announce on Friday that it would accept all UK offer holders, irrespective of their A-level results. 

Wadham College and St Edmund Hall followed Worcester’s decision on Sunday and will also admit all UK offer holders. For capacity reasons, some students will be guaranteed deferred entry for 2021.

The College said: “Many members of our college community and beyond have expressed their concern for the potential impact of yesterday’s A Level results on this year’s incoming students. At Worcester we made offers in 2020 to our most diverse cohort ever, and in response to the uncertainties surrounding this year’s assessment, we have confirmed the places of all our UK offer-holders, irrespective of their A-level results.”

A statement from the Wadham Warden Ken Macdonald QC reads: “It has become increasingly clear to the College that this year’s formal gradings are not adding to our knowledge of applicants’ ability to the extent that we could safely conclude that some of those previously selected for offers should now be denied their places.”

Exeter College initially announced that it would admit nine more students than its number in 2019 (98), having granted clemency to “a record number of students based on their individual circumstances”. On Monday, it, too, confirmed that it would admit all UK offer-holders, taking its total incoming Freshers to 110, although “one additional UK offer-holders’ place is deferred until 2021 because of University-level capacity constraints on their course”. 

New College announced on Monday that it will also admit all UK offer holders. On Twitter, the college wrote: “New College can confirm we have concluded the review of our outstanding offers, and is pleased to announce that all undergraduate offers made in 2019/20 have been confirmed.”

Jesus College also announced it will admit all UK offer-holders, after previously confirming places for 70% of applicants with “mitigating circumstances” and admitting all Opportunity Oxford offer-holders. All 2020 offer-holders will now have their places confirmed for either this year or next year.

Keble College updated its statement on Monday evening and will honour all offers made this year irrespective of students’ A-level results. Where University departments are at full capacity, Keble will defer offer-holders’ places until 2021. A petition by a Keble College offer-holder who missed her place by one grade, calling on the University to accept all state school “near misses” has collected over 6,000 signatures at the time of writing.

St. Hugh’s College confirmed on Monday that it will admit all UK offer-holders. In a statement, the college said: “It is our belief that this year’s formal gradings do not provide any additional evidence of these candidates’ abilities. We have therefore concluded it would only be right in the circumstances we face this year to trust the assessments our tutors made in offering places to these candidates”. A “small number” of offer-holders whose courses are now full will be offered guaranteed entry in 2021.

Queen’s College also updated its statement on Monday evening to confirm it will admit all those who hold conditional offers. The college stated that it had “become aware of, and welcome[d], the government’s decision to abandon its standardisation model.”

University College updated its statement after the UK government’s U-turn on A-level decisions on Monday evening: “In light of today’s announcement that A Level grades are to be awarded on the basis of teacher predictions, Univ will now confirm the places of all its UK offer-holders.” In case an offer-holder’s course is over-subscribed, the college will confirm their place for 2021.

Guaranteed entry for near-misses or access programme offer-holders

Lady Margaret Hall has “confirmed places at LMH for 97 per cent of all 2020 offer holders.” This includes the highest percentage (93%) of candidates who have missed their grades across all colleges. LMH confirmed that it has “more than doubled [its] rate of ‘clemency’ this year for candidates who were ‘near misses’ – including those affected by algorithmic adjustment.”

Pembroke College has admitted all candidates who missed their offer by one grade. A college statement confirmed that one-fifth of Pembroke’s 2020 intake will be candidates who missed their grades. In 2020, Pembroke will see a record 70% of its UK student intake coming from state schools with “one third coming from the most disadvantaged groups.”

A “majority” of missed offers accepted  

Balliol College has now, according to an updated statement on its website, “confirmed offers to its largest ever undergraduate cohort, including to all offer-holders from a state school or a disadvantaged background”. 12% of Balliol’s intake for 2020 will be students admitted “as a result of flexibility shown by the College” and its incoming group of Freshers will be 72% state-educated.

Brasenose College has communicated that “in the great majority of cases, [the college] confirmed places. The reviews took into account interview and test scores plus relevant contextual information.” Brasenose also stated that it admitted some students from other colleges “to help them maximise the number of possible reprieves across the University.” Brasenose’s intake this year is 9% above normal and will consist of 79% state school students.

Hertford College has confirmed it would “accept the majority of our offer-holders who did not receive grades which fulfilled their original offer conditions”. Furthermore, the college stated it would be admitting its “largest ever cohort with 81% of UK students from state schools.” On Monday evening, the college updated its statement to confirm the places of any outstanding offer-holders who will meet their offer conditions with the grades recommended by their teachers.

Magdalen College has given places to “the majority of offer-holders who did not satisfy the conditions of their offer.” A statement reads: “We are watching the evolving situation closely, and we will be following the University’s policy in considering any appeals that we receive.” 

Merton College announced on Monday that it has admitted “virtually all of those students whose results were not as they had hoped”, although there are no exact numbers given. The college has, however, confirmed that the incoming freshers will have its highest ever proportion of state-educated students, at 70%.

St. Anne’s College has already given clemency to 70% of offer-holders who were not awarded their necessary grades. The college has also confirmed that it would “confirm their [offer-holders’] place for 2021 entry” if they are assigned the necessary grades as a result of an appeal.  

St. Peter’s College announced on Monday that it will confirm places for 100% of offer holders from UK state schools. The remaining students whose offers were not met will have their places confirmed if their grades are revised. Some offer-holders who missed their grades but had their places confirmed will be offered entry in 2021.

Trinity College has confirmed places for 100% of its offer-holders from the most disadvantaged backgrounds “as defined by Oxford’s metrics”. The college is also “actively and urgently exploring the options” for offer-holders who have not been awarded the grades they needed.

Expanding intake size and some clemency

Christ Church has offered clemency “more than in any other year we have on record” and confirmed that “clemency decisions were possible for 93% of our offer holders who attended state schools”.

Mansfield College has “admitted a record number of students, […] by going almost 10% above [its] planned maximum number for this year.” Mansfield’s Principal Helen Mountfield QC further stated: “We have offered places to all our candidates who met their offers and extended ‘clemency’ to as many students as possible who missed them, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.” This year, Mansfield College continues being the Oxford undergraduate college with the highest state school representation (91%). 

Somerville College has confirmed it would honour all offers should students successfully appeal results. Principal Janet Royall tweeted on Friday that Somerville will exercise clemency only to students who are “under-represented”, without detailing what students would fall under this category.

No information on admissions statistics in statement 

St. Catherine’s College stated: “At St Catherine’s, we have already exceeded our target intake for 2020 entry, but we are currently exploring the possibility of other options in response to the complex and rapidly changing situation. If an alternative solution cannot be found, any candidates who meet the conditions of their offer through the appeal process, will be guaranteed a place for entry in 2021.”  

St. Hilda’s College said in a statement: “Our Fellows, Senior Tutor and the Academic Office team are working extremely hard with our offer holders who have met their conditions, and with those who have not. We are very sensitive to the current situation, especially in how it may have affected applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.” 

St. John’s College shared: “Most St John’s offer-holders in fact met their conditions despite the extraordinary circumstances. For those that did not, the St John’s admissions team has reviewed each case in great detail, taking into account all the other performance measures available to us.” 

Lewis Goodall, BBC Policy Editor and St. John’s alumnus, wrote on Twitter: “In a letter to Alumni, an Oxford college told alumni this [Sunday] morning that they’re worried if they did what Worcester did they’d be admitting students who might ‘not flourish'”. Speaking to Cherwell, Mr. Goodall later confirmed that this college was St. John’s.

Has not released information 

Corpus Christi College, Lincoln College, Oriel College and Regent’s Park College are yet to release statements.  

This article was updated on 17/08/2020, 10:13 am to include a statement by New College, on 17/08/2020, 12:16 pm to include a revised statement by Jesus College, on 17/08/2020, 12:57 pm to include a statement by St. Peter’s College, on 17/08/2020, 1:46 pm to include a statement by Trinity College, on 17/08/2020, 2:26 pm to include a revised statement by Exeter College, on 17/08/2020, 3:58 pm to include a statement by Merton College, on 17/08/2020, 4:37 pm to include a revised statement by Balliol College, on 17/08/2020, 5:15 pm to include a statement by St. Hugh’s College, on 17/08/2020, 5:55 pm to include a revised statement by Keble College and on 17/08/2020, 21:27 pm to include a statement by Queen’s College as well as an updated statement by University College and an updated statement from Hertford College

Record state school admissions amid A Level outcry

Amelia Wood
-
0
Record state school admissions amid A Level outcry

Oxford University has announced that it is on course to admit the highest proportion ever of state school students. The news comes amidst widespread controversy about the A Level moderation process, which has caused many prospective students to miss their Oxford offers following results downgrades.

67.8% of incoming students are from state schools, an increase of 5.7 percentage points from the 2019/2020 intake. There was also a 2.3 percentage point intake increase of those students from the areas least likely to send people to higher education and a 6 percentage point increase of admissions of the most socio-economically disadvantaged students. Oxford University stated that the increase exceeded its own access targets for the year.

The University praised all of this year’s A Level students because of the “additional pressure and uncertainty” they had faced due to the coronavirus pandemic.

3,900 offers were made in January for 3,287 places. So far 3,440 offers have been confirmed, including 284 to state school students who had fallen short of the grades specified in their offer. The University assured readers that they had been lenient where possible, especially in cases where students had mitigating circumstances or were from disadvantaged backgrounds. Over half of students who had missed their offers have now been admitted.

The university also reaffirmed its previous commitment to accept any student who later met their offer grades following an appeal. However, this may be in the form of deferred entry to 2021 once the maximum intake of undergraduates for 2020 is reached. An exact number for this maximum intake was not specified. Extra study skills support for the whole of the new intake was also pledged.

The statement comes following outcry at the treatment of A Level results this year, which critics have said has unjustifiably hindered the success of disadvantaged students. Oxford colleges have reacted differently to the situation. Worcester College made national headlines by stating that it would admit all of its offer holders, regardless of A-Level results. Several petitions and open letters have since been circulated on social media, calling for the university as a whole to do the same. Other colleges have cited lack of space as a reason that they could not to follow Worcester’s example.

The University’s online statement said: “Oxford does not make decisions based on grades alone, and selecting the most academically able candidates, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, is crucial to the University’s standards of inclusion and academic excellence. We are determined to work through the challenges imposed on us by this year’s circumstances and to select fairly those students of greatest potential who will thrive in their studies here.”

The University urged any offer holder who felt that their application should be reconsidered to get in touch with their school and college as soon as possible.

A Reflection on Social Media in Lockdown

Bry Toon
-
0
A Reflection on Social Media in Lockdown

While isolated in college, scrolling through social media and endless FaceTime calls became my lifeline. But social media also became an addictive whirlpool of fake news, illegal lockdown parties and increasing numbers of heart-breaking posts. From my room on Brasenose New Quad, I watched people lose family members, my mum put in triple the hours at work at the COVID ward and endless status updates about a “hoax virus”. Being alone took its toll and I struggled to manage my time on social media without being pulled into a hole of statistics and guidelines.

The week before my (online) Mods, I took to managing my screen time. I can’t lie, I don’t actually think I cut down my screen time by much, but what I did (and still do) was limit my time on news sites using the Apple Screen Time feature. I limited myself to 20 minutes a day scouring Sky News, The Guardian and other such websites. This meant that clicking through links I saw on Twitter and Facebook was a no go. Within days I felt a sense of relief; my brain was no longer buzzing with headlines. I also muted the words “Lockdown”, “Coronavirus” and “Covid-19” on any social media platform that allowed me to do so. It might appear that I was adamant to block myself off from the reality of the pandemic, but I found that catching up on the news for just ten minutes in the morning and for just ten minutes in the evening worked wonders on my mental wellbeing.

I am under no illusion that my relationship with social media over the period that I spent on my own during lockdown was healthy, but it was the only way I could stay in touch with my family and friends. I used video call to celebrate my little sisters’ seventh birthday, Mothers’ Day and Fathers’ Day and introduced my grandparents to the fact that, yes, if you press the little video icon you can see my face in real time. Regular virtual quiz nights replaced the nights I would usually spend at the pub with my friends, bringing a sense of normality through the craziness that was virtual Trinity.

However, perhaps the most important encounter I had with technology over lockdown was at 3am, when I felt like I was the only person in the world awake, and I sent text after text to the Shout anonymous helpline. And I was not the only one, I received an automated message that read “please bear with us, we are experienced an unexpected volume of messages at this time.” Those late-night conversations, despite ending in suggestions of mindfulness and a cup of tea, were often all I had when my world was asleep. Covid-19 has seen a rise in Mutual Aid Groups, online support groups and resources being made freely available for people to occupy and educate themselves through the pandemic and I truly hope that this sense of community can be maintained as we progress.

Social media and technology are often blamed for an increase in mental health issues, but for me, it is as much my friend as it is my enemy. Excessive time spent scrolling through my Instagram feed with posts almost begging people to think of others and social distance versus Snapchat stories of people recreating club nights in their kitchen sent my mind into overdrive. But social media has also displayed the best in communities; I have recently heard someone liken social media to an extension of your personal circle. The key to a healthy relationship with technology comes from curating feeds to be spaces that make us feel as good as our friendships and imposing boundaries as we would with people. After all, we are all humans behind the screens.

Artwork by Rachel Jung

A Level Results Day: a ‘kick in the teeth’ for social mobility and educational equality

Skye Fitzgerald McShane
-
0
A Level Results Day: a ‘kick in the teeth’ for social mobility and educational equality

A Level Results Day 2020 was never going to be straightforward. With schools closing their doors all the way back in March in response to the coronavirus pandemic, for the first time there would be no exam results to decide people’s grades. Students across the UK waited anxiously for 5 months whilst the government supposedly formulated a system to ‘make sure that pupils get the qualifications they need and deserve for their academic career’ as promised. What they came up with is a classist algorithm that ignores the hard work and aspirations of disadvantaged students and continues to uphold the educational divide between those who are well off and those who are not.

The exact system used relies on simplistic notions of achievement to make a complex decision. Teachers were asked to submit predicted grades for their students alongside an overall rank of each student in their class. These results were then moderated by Ofqual (The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation) according to multiple factors, prominently the historic performance of student’s schools. This moderation led to 39.1% of teacher predicted results being reduced by at least one grade. With a single grade often being the difference between a place on a course or not, this is a concerning enough figure. But the breakdown of who was most harshly affected by this moderation reveals an indefensible divide between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils. Students from wealthier areas were less likely than their disadvantaged counterparts to have their grades adjusted down from their teachers predictions: those from Ofqual’s lowest socioeconomic category had their proportion of C grades or above reduced by over 10%. The algorithm gave more credence to the predictions of subjects in schools with smaller class cohorts, which is a massive benefit for schools who can afford to operate in such a way – these schools are disproportionately private. There has been an overall increase in students achieving top grades as compared to last year, but this is lopsided: said increase for independent schools was more than double that of state comprehensives, and extortionately higher than that of colleges.

The overall result is that in a year where the imperative to work at home has already disproportionately impacted pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds, the education gap has been well and truly entrenched by A Level results that amplify disadvantage.

It stings because it is so obviously unfair. It is hard to see why the solution that makes the most sense, prioritising the predicted grades teachers were asked to come up with, has been ignored apart from for those most privileged students. The argument against using predicted grades alone, citing the ‘unprecedented increase in overall outcomes’ it would generate is simply unconvincing. It is not as though we don’t know this year’s results are going to be skewed, regardless of what system is used to decide them: this entire year has been unprecedented. Why can’t they be skewed in favour of students, who have done nothing wrong but be in Year 13 in 2020? Instead, the historic academic performance of schools has been used to moderate predicted grades. This means that the locality of the school that a pupil attends is a factor in their awarded grade – it is easy to understand why students feel as if their postcodes have defined them.

I am not claiming predicted grades are perfect in any way, of course. Working class students and students of colour are more likely than their counterparts to be underestimated by teacher predictions and this cannot be ignored. But an algorithm for moderation should aim to dispel this inequality, instead of the contrary system that has been used instead which seems to mean that a student’s school’s performance can have more impact on their results than their teacher’s prediction or their own prior grades. Teachers should have been trusted to know their student better than an algorithm. They are in a superior position to award specific, fairer grades based on personal achievement than a simplistic ranking system. However, the contrast in the acceptance of predictions seems to show those in power believe teachers from wealthier areas and private schools are more trustworthy than those from state schools. Either that, or they cannot fathom disadvantaged students succeeding past their circumstances.

Boris Johnson can claim all he wants about ‘robust’ and ‘dependable’ outcomes, but that doesn’t stop the fact many students have not received the grades they expected, worked for or deserved. The results may be ‘robust’ but they are not right, and they are not fair. With there being no exam to sit, this system has allowed for students’ postcodes and their family’s income to be more important than their hard work, and any integrity attached to these results is destroyed by this simple truth whose impact is felt most harshly by those most disadvantaged in this country.

The fairest action now would be to follow in the steps of Scotland and simply award everyone their predicted grades, but the damage has already been done for so many students original wishes for the future. Many have lost their original offers and have had to settle for second choices or clearing alternatives. The government’s hasty backtrack to pay for appeals for mock exam grades is important but too little too late. It is quite clear we cannot rely on them, so it is now the onus of universities, apprenticeships and employers to wade through this mess.

In Oxford, the example has been set by Worcester and several other colleges in admitting all or most of their UK offer holders, with a focus on those deemed most disadvantaged. Worcester Admissions Tutor Professor Laura Ashe referred to the decision as ‘the morally right thing to do’. Open letters, petitions and an #HonourtheOffer campaign are being signed and spread across the university community to call for all colleges to follow suit. The Oxford SU Class Act Campaign’s statement sums up the main argument clearly: ‘If the University of Oxford is to work actively to combat classism, the University and constituent colleges must all take decisive action to provide places to those disadvantaged students who have been denied the opportunity to take up a place they have already earned through undergoing Oxford’s rigorous application process.’ Whilst it is not feasible for every post-18 education or employment supplier to give every student their proposed place, they have a responsibility to recognise the injustice of these results and give students the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

The fight to close the educational gap is incredibly important. As a proud state comprehensive student from a lower income background it is certainly a personal fight. Standing (socially distanced) outside my old school on Thursday as friends collected results, I felt and continue to feel so incredibly angry on behalf of them and of all students who wanted to do better than people’s expectations. They were betrayed. These results are a kick in the teeth for social mobility and educational justice, and a sad reflection of what happens when the higher echelons of power are dominated by those who only know privilege. A system reliant on historical performance simply entrenches historical inequality and the government needs to take a long hard look at what has happened here, especially as GCSE students face their own results day next week. No student should be defined by what school they go to or their socio-economic background, especially in such a strange and unwieldly time.

One of the Prime Minister’s favourite rallying cries has been his desire to ‘level up’ those parts of the country seen as ‘less than’; the poorer, working-class communities where unemployment is high while self-belief and aspirations are low. This A-level debacle is, as Andy Burnham stated: ‘the single biggest act of levelling down that this country has ever seen’. Boris and his band of mainly privileged white men should hang their heads in shame.

The government’s obesity strategy might increase our mental health crisis

Deia Russell-Smith
-
0
The government’s obesity strategy might increase our mental health crisis

TW: Eating disorders

Last week, the government announced its ‘obesity strategy’ after increasing concerns over the disproportionate amount of obese people in the UK who have had life-threatening reactions to the Coronavirus pandemic. This announcement came after Public Health England found that those with a BMI over 40 had an increased risk of death by 90% and 7.9% of critically ill patients with COVID-19 had a BMI over 40. Such evidence prompted Prime Minister Boris Johnson to don his running shoes and lose over a stone since contracting the disease and spending time in intensive care. 

But the obesity measures have certainly had their critics: on social media, scores of outlets are suggesting that the ‘weight loss programme’ will have more severely damaging effects than positive ones. One of the main concerns is that calorie labelling on restaurant menus and traffic lighting foods as “green = good” and “red = bad” is a severe over-simplification and will lead to obsessive behaviour around calorie counting. Orthorexia, or the obsessive focus on healthy eating, revolves around the mania of food purity and has increased with outlets such as Instagram being a platform to promote ‘clean’ eating and restrictive dieting.  

Traffic light systems and labelling food as good/bad or clean/unclean, has been warned against by medical professionals seeking to break free from the fad dieting cycle for over a decade. Using binary terms to demonstrate what is a complex health issue certainly seems counterproductive. The measures which suggest ‘eating less’ and ‘exercising more’ are a magic formula for weight loss are ignoring the breakdown of food groups and nutrient density. The government’s advice asking people to go away and eat less is a vague and unachievable goal for many. The advice ignores, for a large part, that individuals may not know what high-volume, nutrient-dense food is, how to cook and prepare it, or even how to restrict high-density calories in everyday substances such as olive oil and salad dressings. But why would they? You only know this information on how to restrict your consumption if you have a preoccupation with calories consumed against calories burnt. 

In other words, these measures simply reinforce many of the obsessive relationships that people already have with food. Those who are in need of more information to tackle being overweight are left with an oversimplified task, asking ‘what type of exercise should I do? Cardio or strength training? What about if I can’t afford the gym? What about if I have an injury? What are nutrients and macros?’ The questions could go on… 

Only a few days ago, researchers in Canada released how they believe governments should be tackling obesity by first understanding the complexity of problem and treating it as chronic illness. The programme is intended not to be based off BMI or scale-weight but instead on the individual’s achievable goals and their food triggers. Dr Sean Warton, the lead researcher, argues that the stigmatising of obesity means that many overweight people are overlooked and misdiagnosed, and the over-consumption of food is often linked to trauma and other mental health issues, alongside other causes. This sophisticated approach to obesity certainly is a breath of fresh air away from the UK government’s ‘one-size fits all’ strategy and shows how much of a long-term, individual impact Canada is willing to make. 

The government seems to be evading the issue that much of the high-fat and high-sugar foods which are sold in supermarkets have highly addictive ingredients such as aspartame. Such sweeteners as replacements for sugar are not only addictive but they aren’t taxed, which increases levels in products available in supermarkets at incredibly competitive prices. Although, increasing tax and restrictions on what can be in our consumed goods has hardly prevented consumption of alcohol for example, where the UK’s alcohol tax is much higher than other European countries, but consumption is also greater. 

Of course, the price of food does factor into the debate on healthy eating. Many takeaway and fast-food outlets undoubtably sell unhealthy food marked with high saturated-fat, sugar and salt content. But the government’s desire for economic recovery and the much celebrated Eat Out to Help Out scheme which includes many of these restaurants such as McDonald’s, KFC, and local takeaways too, seems counterproductive. 

The mixed messages which the government is giving people: lose weight but also spend all your money in fast-food restaurants, is as confusing as to how people are supposed to lose weight. From 10-years of Conservative governments which have been presented with the high levels of obesity in the UK many times over the decade, this policy seems a classic example of Tory individualism. 

The onus is, as always, on the individual to find out how to sustain their weight loss, eat a moderate balanced diet, and not to get obsessive about healthy eating, all whilst battling the prospect of getting half-off their favourite foods from the same government help, and also perhaps feeding their family on next to no money. 

The extremity between those with too much food and those with none is a feature of Conservative governments which have given little concern to food poverty and living conditions, both of which have amounted largely because of their austerity. 

Should we expect anything different? No. A government truly concerned about the health impact of advertising would take more heed to the increasing levels of body dysmorphia and the mental health crisis which is arising from the unrealistic advertising on Instagram and huge clothing companies. But, instead, they are advocating for individuals to take care of themselves while the advertising on TV, on public transport, and on billboards, simultaneously shows price drops and low-priced, fast and processed food, whilst also idolising the perfect slim (and often unattainable) body. 

Increasing people’s anxiety over their health without the tools to approach a long and sustainable lifestyle change is fruitless. Instead, it will increase stigma and fat-shaming which is already so prevalent. You cannot look at someone’s body and see their health and you cannot see their mental health either. Both are interconnected, and physical health is dependent upon mental stability. 

All bodies deserve respect. And yet again, Conservative governments are allowing criticism against people for how they live and how they look without ever understanding that person’s circumstances. 

Image via Flickr

Why we love Bake Off: escapism or realism?

Ramani Chandramohan
-
0
Why we love Bake Off: escapism or realism?

Where have all the soggy bottoms and Star Bakers gone? Having already affected filming for beloved shows such as Derry Girls, Love Island and RuPaul’s Drag Race, the pandemic is also set to disrupt that decade-old British institution – The Great British Bake Off – which would normally return to our screens this month. 

Yet in some ways, Bake Off feels more relevant than ever before. With record numbers of us channelling our inner Mary Berry and making banana bread during lockdown, perhaps we could all do with a collective cry over a collapsed gingerbread house right now. As we wait for this desert of desserts to be filled, it might be an appropriate time to indulge in a bit of GBBO nostalgia, though, to be honest, any excuse would do. On a side note, Bake Off has given me two tangential claims to fame: Paul Hollywood actually judged a bake off at my old school (apparently he’s a sucker for coffee and walnut cake…) and Nadiya went to the school that my mum used to teach at. 

So why is the nation so obsessed with this show, which has always presented us with a sugar-coated version of reality? Escapism is at least part of its success story as we watch the bakers whip up stunning showstoppers in the pristine white tent and idyllic surroundings of Welbury Park. Ultimately though, the contestants are real people with real lives as nurses, HGV drivers and prison governors but also as parents, grandparents, spouses and partners outside of the tent. Moreover, Bake Off is one of the few shows to present a compassionate side to reality TV with its heartening moments of camaraderie, such as when the contestants of last year’s series all pitched in to help Priya and Jamie who were struggling to finish their Signature Biscuit creations on time. 

As with any popular TV series which risks ending up with a tired format (*coughs*, The Apprentice), the producers of Bake Off have repeatedly tried to rejuvenate it, though with varying degrees of effectiveness. The increasingly random themes for each episode have, for instance, led to some bemusement among fans on Twitter – Botanical Week, anyone? 

For all the excitement of ‘Custard-gate’ and ‘Bin-gate’, Bake Off has experienced just as much drama off-screen, which surely accounts for its continued appeal. Mel and Sue famously refused to ‘follow the dough’, along with Mary Berry, when the show moved to Channel 4. Whilst I didn’t feel the need to boycott the programme as some diehard fans did, I’ve often found the new ‘Sandi-in-a-sack’ gag just a bit weird and I have missed the myriad of tones with which Mel and Sue would announce those inimitable words: ‘on your marks, get set, bake!’. However, the sister show ‘An Extra Slice’ on both BBC 2 and Channel 4 has been a hilarious, rather than gimmicky, addition to the franchise, revealing the somewhat mixed results of the Bake Off effect when viewers attempt to recreate those tricky technicals at home. 

Thankfully, our sugar craving for the show might be filled before too long, with rumours that Bake Off will be back on by the end of the year. I, for one, can’t wait for the return of that unique mixture of the absurd and the sublime rolled into every episode, alongside a sprinkling of baking innuendos and shots of well-endowed squirrels, of course. For now though, I’ll have to make do with drawing on the memes of James Acaster’s cake-induced existential crisis as a guide to my post-Finals life…  

Image via BBC/Love Productions/Mark Bourdillon

Open letters and petitions call for Oxford to accept all offer-holders

Mark Robins
-
0
Open letters and petitions call for Oxford to accept all offer-holders

The University of Oxford is facing pressure to admit offer-holders who missed their grades, amidst controversy over A-level results.

Almost 40% of teacher assessments were downgraded due to a standardisation process based on schools’ previous exam performances. Analysis has shown that students from disadvantaged were hit hardest by the downgrades.

An open letter to Oxford University Admissions is calling for all 2020 offers to be made unconditional.

It says: “As graduates of Oxford, we write to plead with admissions tutors across the university to show kindness and generosity to the many pupils whose predicted A Level results were unexpectedly and unfairly ‘downgraded’ by an algorithm.”

The letter, signed by nearly 3000 Oxford graduates and students by the evening following A-Level results day, continues: “We are particularly concerned by the disproportionate impact this has had on students from poorer backgrounds. Across the country, 40% of pupils saw their grades lowered by a system which takes into account their school and region in determining the mark they ‘should’ have earned (had they sat an exam). This approach simply reproduces and amplifies the inequalities already baked into our system.”

Oxford SU Class Act Campaign backs calls for A-Level grades to be disregarded. A statement said: “Offer holders have found themselves losing their places at Oxford despite having been awarded the grades needed to attend Oxford by their teachers, or having already achieved them in mock examinations. These students have been judged on their socio-economic backgrounds over what they have shown they can achieve to their teachers and their schools.”

“In this extraordinary year, the simplest way forward would be to provide places for all offer holders, as Worcester College has already been able to do. We urge all colleges to consider doing the same.”

Over 2,500 people have also signed a petition calling for Oxford to reverse the decision to “take places away from state school ‘near misses’”.

Worcester College has confirmed that it will accept all offer-holders regardless of A-level results.

The College said: “Many members of our college community and beyond have expressed their concern for the potential impact of yesterday’s A Level results on this year’s incoming students. At Worcester we made offers in 2020 to our most diverse cohort ever, and in response to the uncertainties surrounding this year’s assessment, we have confirmed the places of all our UK offer-holders, irrespective of their A-level results.”

Hertford College has accepted a record number of offer-holders, with 81% of UK students having attended state schools. This is up from their three-year average of 70%.

The College tweeted: “Following detailed work on a case by case basis, we’re pleased to have accepted the majority of those who didn’t meet their offers. Consequently, we’re admitting our largest ever cohort with 81% of UK students from state schools.”

The University announced yesterday that unsuccessful offer-holders who appeal their grades will not start in 2020. They will have to wait a year before beginning their course.

A University spokesperson said: “We intend to take every student who meets their offer grades as well as those where we consider there are mitigating circumstances for them missing their grade. As we do every year when grades are remarked, some students may be offered a deferred place. 

“Once we reach our maximum intake of undergraduates in 2020, we will have to defer entry to 2021 for any additional candidates who appeal successfully and whose place is then confirmed. Our primary concern must be the health and safety of our students, staff and community and it will not otherwise be possible for us to meet ongoing social-distancing restrictions and other challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.  

“The University already has detailed plans for students’ arrival to ensure they have a safe and successful year ahead, regardless of their background, personal circumstances, or how they have been directly affected by the pandemic. In all circumstances, the University’s first priority is the health and welfare of our students and staff. 

Unfortunately, we cannot comment on specific figures until places have been confirmed.”

The University previously committed to using its clemency policy if there was evidence students from disadvantaged backgrounds were unfairly affected by the grading system.

Ofqual, the examination regulator, defended its policy, saying: “Without standardisation there was the potential for students to be unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged, depending on the school or college they attended and the approach they took.”

“A key motivation for the design of the approach to standardisation that we took was to remove this potential inequality and, as far as possible, ensure that a grade represents the same standard, irrespective of the school or college they attended.”

“A computer decided my future”: Oxford applicants share stories of success and missed offers

Isabella Colletta and Joe Hyland Deeson
-
0
“A computer decided my future”: Oxford applicants share stories of success and missed offers

Following an A-Level results day of unprecedented uncertainty, Cherwell has interviewed offer-holders about their experiences, some of whom missed out on a place due to the system employed to moderate grades. Final results, up to 40% of which were lowered by Ofqual, have provoked controversy across the country as students have been disadvantaged, many by circumstances beyond their control. Yesterday, the University published advice on a page of FAQs for Undergraduate Offer Holders which advised that applicants that successfully appealed their grades after the 13th August would miss out on a place this year, and instead be required to defer their entry to 2021.

In statements to The Times and Cherwell, the University of Oxford previously declared that it would use its existing clemency policy to mitigate “educational disruption” caused by the pandemic. A University spokesperson acknowledged that contextual factors may be used in admissions decisions “if the results show young people experiencing disadvantage were unfairly affected by the mechanism used to issue A-Level grades”.

Some students who missed their offer were rejected

However, some applicants have found themselves neglected by the University’s clemency system. One offer-holder, who missed their admissions offer by one grade and was not accepted into Keble College to study Geography, told Cherwell: “I was rejected today despite achieving AAA at a state comprehensive school. To add insult to injury, I was the first girl in my school’s history to receive an offer from Oxford so the rejection hurt our school community more generally”.

A petition calling to ‘Reverse Oxford University’s decision to take places away from state school near misses’ started by the student reached 2500 signatures in under a day. In it, she described her background: “I am a first generation student, come from a working class background and was selected for highly competitive Oxbridge outreach programmes.

“After completing the gruelling Oxford application process, sitting the admissions exam and going to Oxford for interview, when I received an offer at the university, I knew the last hurdle to overcome was to achieve the A*AA offer in my A-levels. Then Covid-19 struck and changed all of that; a computer algorithm would now decide my future.

“In all three of my A-level subjects I was downgraded from A*A*A* to AAA despite being ranked second. However, this wasn’t good enough for Oxford and I lost my place.”

The disparity between the final grades awarded to offer holders and what they were awarded by their teachers has been the subject of much focus nationally. One Oxford English tutor posted online, observing that: “I know I and every colleague I’ve talked to feel very sceptical about the strength of this year’s results versus what we know having met our candidates.”

Other students were accepted with lower grades

One applicant who missed their offer but was nevertheless accepted by their college told Cherwell: “I had a really difficult Year 13 and my grades tanked, and I was finally getting them back on track (but not high enough) when lockdown began. I thought I lost my chance.

“My college took all my extenuating circumstances into account, looked at my Year 12 end of year grades, and let me in even though I missed my offer. I’m so grateful.” The applicant had seen the AAB awarded by their teachers downgraded to an ABC in their final results.

Another student, who made their offer, said that they felt “massively advantaged by having moved to a grammar school [for] sixth form. The grading system worked to the point that one examination board ‘averages’ the results of all A-Level students in the country and downgraded a ridiculous proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

The issue of capacity and safety

In a statement, Worcester College confirmed that: “Many members of our college community and beyond have expressed their concern for the potential impact of yesterday’s A Level results on this year’s incoming students. At Worcester we made offers in 2020 to our most diverse cohort ever, and in response to the uncertainties surrounding this year’s assessment, we have confirmed the places of all our UK offer-holders, irrespective of their A-level results.”

There have been repeated calls for other colleges to follow suit. However, the capacity of Oxford colleges to operate safely in the context of the current pandemic has also been given as a reason for students missing out on places. One college emailed an applicant informing them that, despite their appeal against the grades which saw them miss their offer, “We are already over our maximum accommodation capacity, and it would be unsafe for us to offer any additional places. The health and safety of our students is of the utmost priority, and therefore we cannot agree to admit you this year even if your appeal is successful.”

The University of Oxford told Cherwell: “We intend to take every student who meets their offer grades as well as those where we consider there are mitigating circumstances for them missing their grade. As we do every year when grades are remarked, some students may be offered a deferred place. 

“Once we reach our maximum intake of undergraduates in 2020, we will have to defer entry to 2021 for any additional candidates who appeal successfully and whose place is then confirmed. Our primary concern must be the health and safety of our students, staff and community and it will not otherwise be possible for us to meet ongoing social-distancing restrictions and other challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

National responses

Students across the country have organised protests criticising the government’s approach to the results system and the downgrading of grades by just under 40%. Speaking to Cherwell, a representative from the protest group A Level U-Turn Now said: “I think that’s a massive failure on the part of universities, especially universities where they have such strict interview processes and have way more data, [they] are in a way better position than any other university to make that call”.

Protests against the grading system have been organised in Brighton, London and Liverpool, and organisers intend to deliver the message that “everyone should have their centre assessed grades”.
Members of the public have also been calling on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to honour the offers of state school students through the hashtag #HonourTheOffer after The Times reported that both universities rejected governmental calls to hold places for A-level students who are appealing their grades. Following calls by Professor Priyamvada Gopal, Fellow of Churchill College Cambridge, for the University to hold open places “as a matter of principle”, Oxford alumni and current students have created an open letter demanding the University make all 2020 offers unconditional.

1...431432433...2,515Page 432 of 2,515

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