Saturday 5th July 2025
Blog Page 44

Unpaid internships disproportionately benefit the middle-class

Iona Mandal
-
0
Unpaid internships disproportionately benefit the middle-class

Earlier this year, The Sutton Trust published a report on unpaid and underpaid internships, concluding that the current access to internships disproportionately benefits middle-class graduates over working class graduates and arguing that unpaid internships exclude young people without pre-existing financial support.

The report, published in January, recommends that unpaid internships over four weeks in length should be banned outright, and that all internship positions should be publicly advertised, rather than informally offered – only 1 in 10 internships are found through open advertisement. It also recommends that HMRC should promote information on internships, and conduct an information campaign to inform young people of their right to pay.

More than half of graduates aged 21 – 29 who took part in the research reported completing at least one internship, an increase of 12% from 2018. 59% of employers – rising to 80% in London – who took part, reported offering internships, which is an increase from 48% in 2018.

However, 1 in 5 internships currently offer no financial compensation at all, and 40% of unpaid interns rely on financial support from parents or relatives. There has also been an increase in the gap between those participating in internships from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The number of working-class graduates taking part in internships has risen from 31% to 36%, whilst the percentage of middle-class graduates has grown from 43% to 55%.

26% of respondents from a working-class background said they could not afford to take an internship, compared with 15% from middle-class background. 44% of those who attended private schools said they had completed multiple internships, compared with just 18% from state schools.

Nick Harrison, Chief Executive of The Sutton Trust, said: “Internships are an increasingly critical route into the best jobs, and it’s shocking that in this day and age, many employers still pay interns below the minimum wage, or worse, nothing at all. They should be ashamed.”

He added: “As well as paying interns properly, there’s also a whole lot more that employers must do to make sure they’re accessing a wider pool of talent, such as advertising internship opportunities rather than taking in family and friends of their existing staff or biggest customers.”

SU suppressed The Oxford Student’s editorial independence

Ila Banerji, Euan Elliott, and Bryn Mollet
-
0
SU suppressed The Oxford Student’s editorial independence

The Student Union (SU) suppressed the editorial independence of The Oxford Student (OxStu) newspaper, in what a private letter from three former editors-in-chief called “overbearing censorship”, when it tried to publish the SU’s apology to a former president. 

The paper is owned by the SU, which, despite publicly presenting the paper as independent, has used its position of ownership to prevent it from publishing an article that may damage the public image of the SU. Documents show an SU board member viewed OxStu as its ‘media piece’ and expected its support.

Tensions between the SU and OxStu came to the fore last year. On 28th October, the SU issued an apology to a former president and cleared him of the unfounded allegations that had led to his suspension. Immediately, OxStu then attempted to report on this apology but received pushback from the SU.

Emails between SU Trustee Board members viewed by Cherwell, reveal that the SU had tried to suppress certain information in the OxStu’s publication of the SU public apology. In response to the initial draft article, an SU board member wrote in a 30th October email asking OxStu to remove a line.

The email said: “you are not to publish the article in its current form. Failure to comply with this request will constitute a breach of the [Memorandum of Understanding] and will leave the Board with no choice but to suspend access to [OxStu] website and remove the planned print edition scheduled for release tomorrow.” Other board members expressed their support for this in emails sent later that day.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), a non-legally binding document, outlines the relationship between the SU and OxStu. It states that “the OxStu and SU are committed to ensuring freedom of speech and freedom of the press are upheld in all circumstances”, and that the OxStu should not be treated as the SU’s “newsletter”. The OxStu website claims that their constitution “grants [them] full editorial independence from the SU.”

However, sections in the MoU from Trinity Term 2024 appear to contradict this claim to independence. The agreement imposes limits on what the newspaper is able to publish when content may bring the SU into disrepute, stating: “personal and employment issues related to elected representatives shall not be printed, at the discretion of the Oxford SU” (section 3.i) and that “individual members of staff employed by Oxford SU are working under the instruction of the Oxford SU Trustee Board and CEO and should not normally be named, including role titles” (3.j).

The SU cited its legal responsibility for the OxStu as rationale for blocking publication of the article; however, the SU’s media lawyer later “conclud[ed] that they are not publishing libel” according to a 30th October email from the then-SU president.

The SU told Cherwell: “This was not a matter of libel law. This line was removed in accordance with matters of confidentiality and employment law. As you will appreciate, no employer should approve the publication of confidential, private information relating to either its employees or former employees to any newspaper.”

In the UK, there is an exception to the common law duty to protect confidential information when there is public interest in its disclosure. An independent paper is normally able to report on confidential information when doing so is in the public interest. Editorial independence means that a publisher or financier cannot stop the publication of articles even if they are of reputational damage to them (provided that they are not libellous). The BBC, for example, is funded by the government and regularly publishes stories that reflect negatively on the government.

Following the pushback, three former editors-in-chief wrote a letter on 29th October expressing their concern over what they described as “the overbearing censorship” of the SU in their handling of the situation. The authors of this letter did not send it to Cherwell; it was instead obtained alongside the other emails.

The letter expressed concern that SU staff could be able to veto articles that depicted the SU in a negative light. In particular, it said that “despite the OxStu having a media lawyer to consult in cases like these, the editors-in-chief have been instead put under pressure to show [the CEO] articles before publication.” The authors of this letter have since resigned or discontinued their work with the OxStu.

In response to the letter, the SU developed the Media Oversight Committee “with the objective of evaluating and establishing a more sustainable, transparent framework for the working relationship between OxStu and the SU going forward…It took the feedback onboard, engaged with the student journalists’ concerns and held collaborative conversations regarding a review into the paper”.

In the audio recording of a video call, a former editor-in-chief – who did not pen the above letter and continues to work with the OxStu today – repeatedly referred to OxStu as a “mouthpiece” of the SU. Similarly, one trustee wrote in an 30th October email: “In certain exceptional circumstances, Oxford Student is the only formal media piece of SU and needs to support SU accordingly.” 

When approached for comments, OxStu denied that it is a ‘mouthpiece’ and said that “none of the current members of OxStu‘s editorial board believe it to be a ‘mouthpiece’ of the SU”. They noted that there have been several occasions – both before and since this event – in which OxStu has been able to publish articles that are critical of the SU, stating: “We have roundly critiqued, or reported on failings of, their structure, infighting, policies and scandals.”

In the aftermath of the apology story, internal SU documents show the organisation’s concern over OxStu’s “reputational or financial risk” to the SU, as well as the “legal risk”, which was the reason conveyed to the editors. In various emails and meetings concerning the future of the OxStu, the SU discussed the possibility of withdrawing funding for the newspaper. In the minutes for a 31st October meeting, one board member “suggested that the OxStu might operate better outside SU governance, allowing them editorial independence.”

The above quotes reflect the views of the staff or board member who suggested it, not necessarily of the SU as a whole.

A former OxStu journalist told Cherwell: “I definitely felt an existential anxiety about the paper’s future at the time, especially since its relationship with the SU had broken down over issues of editorial independence. It also seemed possible that the SU was trying to force OxStu into complete independence – i.e. not receiving SU funding – if it didn’t get its way on certain important issues.”

The SU added in response: “Whilst we are not at liberty to disclose confidential discussions amongst the SU Board with third parties, it is widely known at the University that the SU Board is working to find solutions to protect the future of OxStu and its editorial independence, in response to feedback from employees and students of both the SU and OxStu.”

Disclosure: Cherwell is owned by Oxford Student Publications Limited (OSPL), a student-run company. OSPL was set up to ensure the editorial independence of its publications from the University and the SU.

Death of the Album, rise of the playlist

Gabriella Ofo
-
0
Death of the Album, rise of the playlist

The album, once the definitive artistic statement in music, is being increasingly overshadowed by the rise of the playlist. Streaming platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music have reshaped how listeners engage with music, favouring curated, algorithm-driven playlists over full-length albums. This shift prioritises mood and accessibility over narrative cohesion, pushing artists to release single-driven songs for playlist placement rather than carefully put together albums. The emphasis on immediate engagement and shareability means that the traditional album structure, often crafted to be experienced as a singular journey is now frequently dissected into isolated tracks that can stand alone in a playlist environment. In an era where music consumption is dictated by convenience and instant gratification, the album’s role as a complete artistic statement is being challenged more than ever before.

2025 has already witnessed new mainstream albums from the likes of Bad Bunny, The Weeknd, and Central Cee, with their successes likely dissected in streaming figures, TikTok trends, and playlist placements rather than the traditional sense of album appreciation. Central Cee, despite first releasing music in 2015, only just released his debut studio album, ‘Can’t Rush Greatness.’ A leader in UK rap, he has built his brand not on album storytelling, but on viral singles and quick hit collaborations that feed into Spotify’s algorithmic rotations. This ability to dominate the charts can be illustrated in standalone songs such as ‘Sprinter’ or ‘BAND4BAND’, tracks that gained massive traction through social media virality, reflecting a new era in which the playlist comes first, with momentum trumping long form artistic statements. 

This phenomenon is not just about how music is consumed but also how it’s made, as artists are increasingly aware of streaming algorithms that favour frequent releases over cohesive, conceptual projections. Instead of crafting a 12-track album with a clear narrative arc, many musicians now focus on singles that can land on key playlists, ensuring their music is in constant circulation. The pressures of maintaining visibility in an oversaturated market incentivises artists to adopt a continuous-release strategy, favouring a steady stream of standalone tracks over the lengthy development of a conceptually unified album. The streaming era has also diminished the necessity for album fillers, as each song is expected to function as a self-contained hit that can thrive independently. This means that albums today, when released, often consist of a collection of potential singles rather than a meticulously structured body of work. 

This narrative does not apply to all artists within the mainstream however, Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Mr Morale & The Big Steppers’ (2022) and his recent ‘GNX’ (2024) defied the bite size streaming culture, as he delivered dense, introspective albums that demanded full attention. Lamar’s music, rich with intricate lyricism and conceptual depth, is designed to be absorbed holistically rather than consumed piecemeal. His continued dedication to long-form storytelling suggests that while the industry may be shifting towards singles and curated playlist experiences, there is still space for artists committed to preserving the album as a serious artistic medium. His success proving that listeners still crave immersive narratives and cohesive albums—though they may be increasingly rare.

However, even as artists attempt to preserve the sanctity of the album the reality remains that playlists dominate listening habits. The way listeners engage with music has fundamentally changed, and the biggest question is to whether the album will survive as a cohesive body of work, or are we witnessing the permanent rise of the playlist as the dominant mode of music consumption? While some artists may continue to push back against the trend, the overwhelming commercial success of playlist-friendly music suggests that the industry’s trajectory is unlikely to reverse. The album may not disappear entirely, but its role as the primary vessel for artistic expression in popular music is undoubtedly under threat.

Former Burger King to be transformed into student accommodation

Liya Sebhatu
-
0
Former Burger King to be transformed into student accommodation

Jesus College have submitted a planning application to transform property in the city centre into student accommodation. The site is between Pret a Manger and WHS Smith and the ground floor and basement will still be available for commercial use. The completed project aims to provide the college with an additional 14 rooms for students to live in. 

The new student accommodation site was previously occupied by a Burger King until it was shut down in early 2023, shortly after receiving a one-star hygiene rating. Project surveyor Mike Sheppard wrote in a report to city council planners that: “the cessation of the Burger King operation has provided a catalyst to secure an efficient use for the property into the future.” 

Jesus College’s Strategic Plan for 2023-2027 seeks to make use of vacant properties. In the planning statement for the new property, the college cited the increase in the growing student population as reason for building new student accommodation. Jesus is one of the colleges which provide students with accommodation for the full duration of undergraduate courses. 

The first and second floors of the new construction will accommodate three students each, whilst the third and fourth will each accommodate four, and all rooms are to be ensuite. The fifth floor is intended to be a plants and services room. There will be no private bike storage associated with the accommodation but students living there will have access to other college bike facilities. 

A nationwide shortage in student housing has impacted Oxford students, with some Oxford undergraduates in 2023 having to queue for up to 24 hours in order to secure housing. 

In recent years, Jesus college has taken other measures to expand its student accommodation, including the Cheng Yu Tung building, which opened in October 2022, and can also be found on Cornmarket Street. As a result of its renewable energy technology, including round source heat pumps, photovoltaic panels, and a heat recovery and cooling system, it is one of the city centre’s first zero carbon buildings. The Cheng Yu Tung building is also a part of the college’s Sustainability Strategy Plan, which aligns with the University’s net zero carbon target by 2035.  

Devolution considered for Thames Valley

Conor Walsh
-
0
Devolution considered for Thames Valley

Devolution in the Thames Valley region has been discussed between Oxford City Council and neighbouring local authorities through a new Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA). The Authority may cover council districts in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Swindon and would localise decision-making powers which normally take place in Westminster.

Discussions are in their early stages but are thought to involve restructuring local government in Oxfordshire – combining Oxford’s six councils into one. This unified council would sit under a new Mayoral authority for the Thames Valley region led by a regional mayor whose powers would include planning, transport, skills, and energy. 

This mayoral authority would emulate the cities of Greater Manchester and London whose mayors already exercise power over public transport and local services. For Oxford this will mean policy decisions about issues such as bus services will be decentralised from national government. Mayoral oversight may also extend to local policing and fire services.

Speaking to Cherwell, Oxford city councillor and Liberal Democrat group leader Dr. Christopher Smowton said that: “I do absolutely welcome devolution of powers away from Westminster.

“The most noticeable impact from a mayoral strategic authority would probably be around transport – for example, greater control over how bus services operate, or more influence over local rail initiatives like resuming passenger service on the Cowley Branch Line.”

The council’s discussion follows the UK government’s plan to devolve power-making across England through the English Devolution Bill which is currently going through parliament. The bill will establish mayoral authorities across the country and enshrine their powers in law. Ahead of the bill, the government has asked councils to envision what these new authorities will look like.

Last week, six other regions in England were fast-tracked for the creation of new mayoral authorities. These include Cumbria, Cheshire and Warrington, and Greater Essex, who will elect regional Mayors for the first time in May 2026.

Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner said: “We have an economy that hoards potential and a politics that hoards power. So our devolution revolution will deliver the greatest transfer of power from Whitehall to our communities in a generation.”

Councillor Chris Jarvis, leader of the Green group, told Cherwell that: “The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world, and so the Green Party welcomes moves to devolve power from Westminster towards local communities. 

“However, by forcing new mayors across the country, the government is giving with one hand and taking with the other. New strategic authorities will be given additional powers, yet these will be centralised in a single individual. That’s not what real devolution should look like.”

Other political leaders have also expressed skepticism about the government’s plans. Speaking in parliament, Conservative MP and Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up Kevin Hollinrake said that the Deputy Prime Minister is creating “Orwellian-sounding strategic authorities that are closer to her and closer to Whitehall, for her to use as a pawn to implement this Government’s deeply unpopular socialist agenda.

“The reality is that this is delegation, not devolution—not devolution but a clear centralisation.” Mr Hollinrake went on to say that “imposing Whitehall diktat on local people, rather than the locally led approach we [the Conservatives] followed, is prone to problems.”

Dindymene: A Dream

Flavius Covaci
-
0
Dindymene: A Dream

And on the seventh day, we found HER temple, feasted

on HER sight. Enthroned. Flanked by mammoths on both

sides. There, there! Berry-ringed fingers on berry-strung

vines: vision clipped with paralysed sparrow eyes. Sunrays

protrude from lava mane like dipped daggers jutting out to

reveal bejewelled testicles dangling from ear-shells glimmering

with — yes, with new blood. Panthers lap the place with heavy

paw, leaving vales where they go, mountains where they sleep,

pools frozen in time everywhere they weep. Round HER ankles looped

a branch dotted by and by with silver bells, metallicized stalks

for clappers — chime, chimera, chime! SHE lit the jungle in HER

cigar, clapped twice, then queendom shattered into

harmony. Shark swam with sloth and lion dined with deer,

                                                                        and I, the ermine-furred freak-of-the-land, am here.

by Flavius Covaci

Oriel College exhibition to ‘contextualise’ legacy of Cecil Rhodes

Noah Robson
-
0
Oriel College exhibition to ‘contextualise’ legacy of Cecil Rhodes

Oriel College have announced the launch of an exhibition aiming “to contextualise the legacy of Cecil Rhodes,” the 19th century British imperialist whose statue above the College has been subject to numerous controversies in the past. The exhibition will involve a sculpture competition in partnership with a Zimbabwean community art project.

Rhodes has long been a controversial figure for his instrumental role in the British colonisation of Africa, which involved violent conquest, exploitative labour practices, and policies of racial segregation. A former Oriel student, Rhodes was also the founder of the eponymous Rhodes Scholarship scheme, which funds international postgraduate students at the University of Oxford. 

Multiple protests demanding the removal of his statue have occurred since 2015, when the #RhodesMustFall movement began, with further demonstrations taking place following the murder of George Floyd in 2020. A commission set up by the College ultimately recommended removing the statue, but Oriel decided not to, citing “regulatory and financial challenges” at the time.

As part of the exhibition, a sculpture competition has been launched by the Oxford Zimbabwe Arts Partnership (OZAP), an grassroots organisation set up in response to the protests as a means of “constructive healing”. Richard Pantlin, the founder of OZAP, said the exhibition represented “an important step forward in creating a partnership that provides educational and cultural benefit”.

The competition, open to artists at the Chitungwiza Arts Centre (CAC) in Zimbabwe, will see a judging panel chaired by Oriel Provost Lord Mendoza decide a winner in early March. Other members of the panel include Zimbabwean artist Be Manzini, and Norbert Shamuyarira, a sculptor from Chitungwiza.

Lord Mendoza described the exhibition as a way to “not only explore the nuances of the legacy of colonialism but … also bring the art of the people of Zimbabwe to Oriel College, to the University of Oxford, and the UK”.

Chairman of the CAC, Tendai Gwarazaava said the winning sculpture “should symbolise the strength and courage of our ancestors, who despite facing unimaginable hardships, continued to fight for their freedom and dignity”.

The exhibition and sculpture is set to open in September 2025 and will also be displayed at the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, before visiting other institutions throughout 2026.

Students protest, walk-out on gender-critical talk at Balliol

Arina Makarina
-
0
Students protest, walk-out on gender-critical talk at Balliol

CW: Transphobia

Helen Joyce, a gender-critical author and feminist, spoke at Balliol College yesterday evening in an event organised by convener of the Balliol Philosophy Society, John Maier. She was invited despite more than 600 people signing a petition protesting transphobia at Oxford University . The talk was titled Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex (and Gender)* *but were afraid to ask [sic] and discussed transgender rights activism and Joyce’s book Trans: When Ideology Makes Reality.

Before the talk, activists handed out leaflets containing Helen Joyce’s previous quotes and called each one false. Roughly five minutes into the talk, over ten transgender rights activists staged a walkout. One of the activists left a banner saying “‘sex-based concerns’ are the thin end of the fascist wedge”. Joyce called the protestors “kids” and said that “they are quite transphobic; they didn’t try hard enough [to disrupt the talk]”.

During the talk, Joyce elaborated on her views and referred to transgender activism as a “rights destroying belief” and trans activists as “rights destroying people”. She claimed that “transition is objectively bad”, as it allows “men” to intrude in women’s spaces and compete in women’s sports. Joyce voiced her concerns that early transitions encourage “children [to be] sterilised”.

When asked about cases of “happy transitions” of trans men she replied that for “girls living as men”, taking testosterone is damaging and there is no evidence that these people “would be happy butch lesbians” otherwise. In response to a question about strong arguments from trans rights activists, Joyce said that she couldn’t think of them, remarking, “they are so stupid”. Speaking about gay rights activism, Joyce suggested that the gay community ran out of legal issues, so it now pursues gender recognition. “Stonewall [human rights group] is about sterilising gay kids”, she said.

A trans man attempted to ask a question about the fact that trans men still get harassed as men, but Joyce and Maier dismissed the question. Maier tried to get another student to ask a question, but she insisted on waiting. Joyce addressed the student with the words “I know you haven’t taken testosterone”.

Balliol JCR President Callum Turnbull, on behalf of the JCR Committee, told Cherwell: “Balliol JCR Committee and the wider Balliol community respect and seek to uphold people’s right to free speech. Our job as a committee is to ensure the welfare of our members, so myself and the LGBTQ+ Officers will support any members who may have been affected by the recent talk by Helen Joyce. While this talk took place at Balliol, it in no way reflects the views of the JCR Committee, who believe that all members should be valued regardless of their gender identity.”

‘Expolwed!’: The Oxford Union’s lazy use of AI

Lloyd Doré-Green
-
0
‘Expolwed!’: The Oxford Union’s lazy use of AI

In a move which exemplifies the growing encroachment of the algorithmic into the artistic, the most recent Oxford Union term card is brimming with the soulless products of artificial intelligence. The Week 5 debate exhumes cancel culture from the graveyard of politics with the hackneyed motion ‘This House Would Cancel Cancel Culture’. Its accompanying AI-generated image depicts a man, the wretched ‘victim’ of social ostracisation, encircled by accusatory and often grotesquely deformed fingers, distorted phone screens, and signs which read “You’re canceled!”, “Exposed!”, and, finally, “Expolwed”. It is hard to decide which is more egregious: the American spelling of ‘cancelled’ or the entirely meaningless “Expolwed”. Reluctantly, I may have to opt for the latter.

There is an obvious reason why this image and the others on the term card, at which I sadistically encourage you to take a closer look, are manifestly absurd when given more than a moment’s glance. After all, beyond the at most half-a-dozen words used to generate them, they are entirely thoughtless; without ever having seen them, you may already have given them more attention than their ‘creator’. This leaves them with little real purpose. I would criticise the obvious heavy-handedness and lack of nuance of the cancel culture image, but I cannot do so without implying that there is some level of intentionality behind it, where in reality there is none. It is merely nonsense masquerading as art; criticising it is a waste of time. In the right hands, AI image generation is a sophisticated tool. But the Union, it seems, confuses a chisel for a sledgehammer.

This is, at its core, shamefully lazy. 

There is a deeper issue here, too. In his welcome, this term’s President claims that “the Union is more than a debating society, it’s a space for free speech, for challenging orthodoxy, for sparking change.” Gratuitous use of AI-generated content, makes a mockery of these lofty ideals. Even “expolwed” aside, the images are devoid of imagination. If they are to constitute a form of expression, which I would deny, they are its most hollowed out and uninteresting kind. And yet, in the most recent term card, this meaningless nonsense has replaced the products of genuine human creativity; silence has replaced speech. The Union had the opportunity to live up to its ideals of free expression and chose to do the opposite, instead passing the platform to an AI which is both unfree and incapable of expression.

Artists matter. Most fundamentally, they keep us honest, to ourselves and to each other, and, in a dishearteningly common number of recent examples, they face censorship for doing so. AI merely rips off and regurgitates this work, providing almost no additional value and, as a result, producing works which very rarely make sense. And yet, because using it takes so little effort, artists will soon be drowned out by a jumbled tide of these hollow, AI-generated counterfeits. In many places this has unfortunately already begun to happen. The Oxford Union has, through laziness, become one of them. It undermines artists at a time when support for them and their free expression could not be more important. This is an obvious betrayal of the Union’s supposed commitment to free speech, a failure of both imagination and principle.

The Oxford Union did not respond to request for comment.

Have an opinion on the points raised in this article? Send us a 150-word letter at [email protected] and see your response in our next print or online.

Manchester United boss Jim Ratcliffe awarded Oxford medal

Ekam Hothi
-
0
Manchester United boss Jim Ratcliffe awarded Oxford medal

Jim Ratcliffe, who is the co-owner of Manchester United football club, has received Oxford University’s Sheldon Medal for philanthropy, following a gift of £100 million to the University in 2021. 

The money was used to found the Ineos Oxford Institute for antimicrobial research (IOI),named after INEOS, a global petrochemicals manufacturer, of which Ratcliffe is the Chairman. The institute aims to combine research and industry innovations to overcome threats to global health, food security, and development. It is particularly focused on the issue of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AMR is predicted to be responsible for upwards of 10 million deaths per year, and by 2050 to have cost the world’s economy more than $100 trillion.

The IOI works to develop new drugs, as well as working at a global scale with governments, financial institutions, and health organisations to increase investment in antimicrobial research.

Ratcliffe said: “I am truly honoured to receive the Sheldon Medal in recognition of INEOS’ donation to the University of Oxford to progress the urgent search for solutions to the crisis of antimicrobial resistance.

“It is a privilege to partner with such a world-class university, whose history is entwined with that of antibiotics, to tackle such a key global challenge.”

The Sheldon Medal is Oxford University’s most prestigious award. It was designed and crafted by sculptor Emma Lavender over several months. A portrait of Ratcliffe occupies one side, the Sheldonian Theatre the other.

It was first awarded in 2002 and Sir Jim Ratcliffe is its eleventh recipient. Only two of each design are produced: a silver medal, and a bronze copy, which is housed in the Ashmolean Museum.

Ratcliffe was presented with the award by Professor Irene Tracey, Vice-Chancellor of the University, at a special event at the Sheldonian Theatre on Wednesday 5th February, which was followed by a dinner in the Divinity School.

Also recognised during the event were INEOS co-founders John Reece and Andy Currie.

1...434445...2,515Page 44 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