Friday 12th September 2025
Blog Page 439

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.

Friday Favourite: The Cairo Trilogy

Itrisyia Dayini
-
0
Friday Favourite: The Cairo Trilogy

“In these uncertain times”: a phrase that has become almost a cliché in discourse surrounding the coronavirus; its aim to console having quite the opposite effect.

For the family of Al-Sayyid Ahmad Al-Jawad in The Cairo Trilogy however, these very words echo their struggle in the turbulent era of 20th century Egypt, as the family navigate the challenges of modernity and the destructive impact of British colonial rule amidst the Egyptian struggle for independence. 

An extensive family saga spanning three generations over three novels – Palace Walk, Palace of Desire and Sugar Street – the narrative centres around the daily life of the conservative Al-Jawad family, controlled by a tyrannical father. From the very beginning of the Trilogy, the double life of the patriarch is clear. Whilst he commands absolute power in the household, his nightly excursions of reckless entertainment are concealed from the family. Returning home intoxicated late into the night, it is his subservient wife, Amina, who dutifully awaits him – an integral part of her domestic routine. She does not know what happens beyond the four walls of her house: her knowledge of the outside world is constrained by the filtered gaze of her window grates. 

The Cairo Trilogy, written during Naguib Mahfouz’s era of social realism in the 1950s, provides a deep insight into the vibrant Egyptian culture and the rhythms of everyday life. He describes in minute detail the daily encounters of the characters, the exciting and the mundane, such as the family coffee-hour around the brazen coals; religious Islamic rituals juxtaposed with lust and longing for women. Intimate stories of the various family members encapsulate the contrasting contemporary ideologies and perspectives. The children of the al-Jawad household are comprised of the sheltered daughters: Khadija and Aisha, and the three sons: the hedonist Yasin, the nationalist Fahmy and the intellectual and introspective Kamal. A martyr during the 1919 Egyptian Revolution, Fahmy’s death at the end of Palace Walk begins the slow demise of the traditional patriarchal narrative, paving the way for the Western encroachment of power.

Indeed, the development of Mahfouz’s characters parallels the progression and transformation of traditional Egyptian society towards modernity. The second novel, Palace of Desire, opens with the deteriorating image of Al-Sayyid Ahmad as age begins to take its toll on him. No longer the mighty head of his day, the focus of the narrative shifts to the second generation, his children, who seek to subvert his authority; mirroring Egypt’s struggle for independence from the British. The presence of the British during the interwar period and their intervention in Egyptian politics leads to a change in how the characters seek to navigate social polarisation, conflicting ideologies and the disruption of family traditions, as Western knowledge and values permeate the conservative family. 

It is Kamal, the symbol of intellectualism and science, said to embody Mahfouz himself, who emerges as the hero of the final novel. His encounter with Western knowledge throws him into an existential and conflicting struggle in the search for his identity, mirroring Mahfouz’s own disillusionment with the political events of the time. His lengthy internal monologues highlight the immense personal and collective struggle experienced by Egyptians as they sought to navigate this era of modernisation.

Although the Trilogy opens with the patriarchal figure of Al-Sayyid Ahmad, Mahfouz subtly weaves female power throughout his narrative to challenge and ultimately subvert Al Sayyid Ahmad’s authority. As his figure slowly wanes, the family structure, symbolised by the organisation of the household, becomes increasingly more democratic and it is his wife, Amina, who reigns supreme until her death at the end of the final novel, Sugar Street. The ending of the Trilogy also coincides with the birth of her great-grandson, born of the Islamist: a poignant reminder of the trends that continue to run the Arab world today.

In a scramble to name-drop an Arabic novel in my personal statement, I first stumbled across The Cairo Trilogy in the ‘Middle Eastern Literature’ section of my local bookstore and saw that it was dominated by Naguib Mahfouz – a whole shelf was dedicated entirely to his works. For me, learning about Egyptian colonial history at school always seemed so distant from truly understanding the local sentiments of the time, especially of a culture so different from our own. The Trilogy brought my history lessons to life and reading it felt as though I was part of the Al-Jawad family myself.

Mahfouz’s The Cairo Trilogy is a powerful narrative of Middle Eastern culture and explores Egypt through the lens of its nation. A historical allegory that mirrors political events through the livelihood of the Al-Jawad family, it is a seminal work of modern Arabic literature and is crucial to understanding Egypt’s modern history, society and culture. As the first novel of Arabic literature I ever read and as a student of Arabic myself, it remains a work close to my heart, and its brilliant English translation is accessible to all.

Offer-holders who successfully appeal grades will not start in 2020

Abigail Howe
-
0
Offer-holders who successfully appeal grades will not start in 2020

The University of Oxford has announced that offer-holders who have missed their A-Level offer grades, but successfully appeal their grades to later meet the offer conditions, will not typically be eligible for entry in the 2020/21 academic year. Instead, they will have to wait a year before beginning their course, the University states on its Results Advice page.

The University refers to the government’s ‘triple lock’ strategy, saying: “Following the recent change (12 August) in Government policy regarding the appeals process for A-levels this year, we are revising our deadline for confirmation of acceptance to begin studying here in autumn 2020.”

“Once we reach maximum capacity for our intake of undergraduates in 2020, we will have to defer entry to 2021 for any additional candidates who appeal successfully and whose place is confirmed after 13 August.”

Offer-holders have been told to contact their prospective colleges urgently if they did not meet the conditions of their offer by 13 August, but hope to do so by the UCAS deadline of 7 September and “believe that deferring the start of [their] course until autumn 2021 would have serious consequences.”

If an appeal is not successful, A-Level students have also been offered the opportunity to take examinations in the autumn, providing enough evidence to reassess grades.

The University has told students that they can reapply to the university at no disadvantage, with autumn 2020 or June 2021 exams not considered as retakes: “Your application will be considered alongside others for 2021 entry, however, we will not consider the results of the exams taken in autumn or June 2021 as retakes, so your application will not be disadvantaged when admissions decisions are made”.

Applicants for Medicine have been told that they must re-take all their qualifications in a single exam sitting, rather than only the ones with which they are dissatisfied.

Additionally, offer-holders with science A-Levels have also been told that the requirement for a pass in their subject’s practical component may be waived, depending on specific extenuating circumstances: “We are aware that students may not have had the chance to complete their practical tasks before the beginning of the pandemic lockdown. If this is the case, or you have other extenuating circumstances that mean you have been unable to gain a pass grade for the endorsement, this requirement may be waived”.

One in five students could defer going to university this year, according to a recent poll. The University stated in their Coronavirus FAQ that “we will not routinely support requests for deferral”, although “any offer holders with particular, verifiable reasons to wish to defer their place should contact the college which made their offer or open-offer to discuss this”.

Oxford University stated previously that they may accept students from disadvantaged backgrounds who miss their A-Level grades, to account for the “educational disruption” caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the disproportionate impact on those from “underrepresented backgrounds”.

The University told Cherwell in July: “If the results show young people experiencing disadvantage were unfairly affected by the mechanism used to issue A Level grades, Oxford will do everything possible within the boundaries of the OfS conditions and the imposed DfE student number controls to help these students. We are fortunate that we hold a wealth of information on the students who have been made offers by Oxford, including admissions test and interview scores.”

The University writes on its website about this year’s A-Level results: “As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, University admissions this year are taking place in an environment of exceptional instability and uncertainty and this includes the extraordinary process for the grading of A-levels. Against this backdrop we are firmly committed to admitting as many eligible students as possible, whilst balancing this against our responsibility to prioritise the health and safety of our community and the need to protect the quality of the Oxford student experience.”

From museum to mosque: the deconsecration of the Hagia Sophia

Daniel Hubbard
-
0
From museum to mosque: the deconsecration of the Hagia Sophia

On the July 10th 2020, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared that the holy site, the Hagia Sophia, would be re-consecrated as a mosque. This change comes 85 years after it was turned into a museum and almost 1,500 years since it was founded as a Greek Orthodox cathedral. The official justification that the Erdoğan regime has issued is that it was illegal for the Turkish government to de-consecrate a mosque. As such, when they deconsecrated the Hagia Sophia in 1935, it was an illegal act. They further claim that foreign powers should not have a say on the status of the Hagia Sophia, a function of Erdoğan’s increasingly neo-Ottoman nationalism. However, emotions around the status of the cathedral/mosque/museum run deep, and act as a key fault line between Turkey’s conflicting identities as a majority Muslim, but an officially secular, nation.

From its construction in the mid-6th century, the Hagia Sophia has always fulfilled a political role. It’s founder, the Byzantine emperor Justinian, saw it as a way to announce the return of Roman power a century after its collapse in the West, and showcase the divine sanctity of his reconquest of the Roman world. The cathedral lay at the heart of Byzantine politics for the next 900 years as the place where the Emperor would be crowned and ceremonially pay his top officials.

In its role as the seat of the Orthodox Church, the cathedral symbolically united the Byzantine Empire. It was so spectacular that the historian Procopius remarked that “the church is singularly full of light”, and that its vast dome appeared as though it was “suspended from heaven”. Its riches, however, also attracted enemies, and when Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders in 1203 its greatest treasures were carried off to Venice. Nonetheless the city, with Hagia Sophia at its heart, gained the attention of the rising Ottoman Empire, who viewed it as their divine calling to take the city which had resisted many previous attacks by Muslim forces. When the city fell to the Ottomans in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II rode his horse into the Hagia Sophia and declared that it would become a mosque, underlining the demise of Byzantium and the rise of Turkish power.

The Hagia Sophia, now renamed the Mosque of Ayasofya, remained the spiritual heart of the Ottoman Empire for the next 460 years. With the Ottoman Sultans declaring themselves caliphs of Islam, the site of Hagia Sophia became seen as one of the holiest sites in Islam behind only Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem, a belief which many Turks still hold. In this period Ottoman engineers worked to save the dome when it was close to collapse, but also whitewashed the unique Byzantine mosaics which proved an anathema to its status as a mosque.

With the collapse of the Ottomans in the wake of their defeat in the First World War, Turkey faced invasion by the Greeks, partly motivated by a desire to retake Constantinople, now renamed Istanbul, and Hagia Sophia along with it. However, Turks rallied around the nationalism of Mustafa Kemal (known as Ataturk, meaning “Father of the Turks”) who repelled the invasion and sought to ‘westernise’ Turkey. Part of Ataturk’s programme was wide ranging secularisation which included the abolition of the caliphate and religious laws; promoting civil equality for women; and discouraged the wearing of religious clothing. The most symbolic reform was the aforementioned conversion of Hagia Sophia from a mosque into a museum in 1935, which included the restoration of its mosaics, in an attempt to show the modern Turkish state transcended any religious divides.

To this day, Ataturk remains the most revered figure in Turkey and any visitor will not fail to notice that his portraits and statues adorn every street. However, while the person of Ataturk remains revered, his policies (eponymously described as Kemalism) were always controversial, enjoying the most support in the developed coastal regions with the interior remaining deeply traditionalist. Since 2003 the political legacy of Ataturk has been under attack by the government of Erdoğan who, first as Prime Minister and now as President, has increasingly centralised power in his own hands. Compared to the opposition, Erdogan’s AK Party is markedly more conservative and sympathetic to more radical forms of Islam. His government has seen the expansion of religious schools and promotion of public Islamic iconography. This has brought him into conflict with the many Turks who still support Kemalist secularism, notably the newly elected Mayor of Istanbul.

It was therefore in this context that Erdoğan re-consecrated the Hagia Sophia as a mosque. For his supporters it represented the devout majority reclaiming what they see as one of the holiest sites in Islam, and plays in to a foreign policy which has been seen as increasingly revanchist, with Turkey playing a major role in former Ottoman territories like Libya and Syria. Opposition parties however have accused Erdoğan of using the issue as a way to cynically court votes in the face of economic stagnation and increased unease at his authoritarianism.

Opposition to the move on Hagia Sophia has been echoed by commentators outside of Turkey. Both the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow have voiced despair at the move, the latter saying that “a threat to the Hagia Sophia is a threat to our spirituality”. The move has also reignited tensions with Turkey’s longtime rival Greece, with the Greek Prime Minister saying he will push for the EU to enact sanctions against Turkey. The re-consecration has also caused alarm outside of the sphere of geo-politics, with academics fearing that the building’s Byzantine mosaics which were painstakingly restored during Hagia Sophia’s time as a museum may now be under threat.

Ultimately, the Hagia Sophia remains today what it always has been over the course of its 1,500-year history: a unique political tool and lightning rod for controversy, as well as one of the most visually stunning and culturally important buildings on earth. It’s foundation symbolised the restoration of Rome’s power and the glory of Justinian; the conversion to a mosque in 1453 heralded the rise of the Ottoman Empire; while it’s transformation as a museum marked Turkey’s arrival into the modern, secular 20th century. Erdoğan’s controversial move shows the continued power of Hagia Sophia to both inspire and polarise, and arguably making the President seem like the political heir to the Orthodox Emperor who first mandated its creation one and a half millennia ago.

1...438439440...2,522Page 439 of 2,522

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