Monday 11th August 2025
Blog Page 672

Is University really worth it?

Zak Watts and Colleen Cumbers
-
0
Is University really worth it?

Yes – Zak Watt

If you asked me where increased earning potential would figure in a ranking of my reasons for going to University, I would have to say it was fairly low, somewhere near the potential for sports stash and the ability to consume neon green VKs without being ostracised from society. While I am fully aware that for many University does, and has to, function as a means to financial freedom, the notion that this must to be the case for everyone is absurd. 

I’m not making the case that University has value in creating opportunities for a broader range of jobs even if they are not more well paid, or that University can develop ‘soft skills’ that can be helpful in the future, though these are both valid points. Rather I argue we should broaden what counts as valid reasons for wanting to go to University. To restrict this choice to a mere financial calculation is worryingly similar to restricting a ‘good life’ to maximisation of pleasure, and unfortunately the critique of utilitarianism is relevant to this reductive view of university; making decisions just isn’t that simple, there is no single algorithm.

An IFS report that found some students who attended university to be ‘worse off’ (financially) than their non-University counterparts, picks out English and Philosophy as being two of these courses. As someone who (for my sins) studies a course, a third of which is philosophy, I must say that while I’m pontificating on the finer details of George Berkeley’s metaphysics it has never once crossed my mind that this will boost my future income. 

For some students of English and Philosophy (among other courses) can’t we accept that their reason for attending University is a genuine interest in their subject, an intellectual itch that cannot be scratched in the world of work? Or perhaps more realistically, that University is one of the only times in life where one will be in such proximity to people of similar ages and interests? Why are these reasons any less rational or valid than financial ones?

Ask any adult who attended University what they most valued about their experience, I doubt many will even mention subsequent job opportunities. Similarly, the fact that the only a third of the Oxford trifecta of success (First, Spouse or Blue) includes anything even related to this tells us something of the variety of reasons people can reasonably have for going to University. 

This perspective doesn’t let Universities off the hook, needing only to be an incubator for young similarly minded people. But rather we shouldn’t only be comparing the financial difference between University and work, the relevant comparisons should also be the quality of intellectual exploration, the opportunities for meeting people and the calibre of memes that are circulated at University compared to in the real world. 

The idea that University is even largely about future earnings is implicit in areas of policy, journalism and most importantly when your mum recommends that you should study Maths instead of Philosophy because she’s heard it’s ‘really employable’. University is a time of exploration which perhaps shapes who you are as a person more than any other 3-year period in your life. Sure, people can go to University in sight of that sweet grad scheme pay check but to say that must be the reason is narrow-minded and not true to most people’s experience. So, before you accept the arguments about the unnecessary cost of Uni (if you don’t want to be a doctor or a lawyer), think about the other, arguably more important, reasons.

No – Colleen Cumbers

A recent study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that many university courses leave graduates no better off – or even worse off – than non-graduates. The now ex-minister for Universities, Sam Gyimah, rightly called for a ‘crackdown’ on universities that are not delivering value for money.  

The report highlights that certain universities and courses do not provide value. The majority of students envisage their degree providing a significant financial boost by the age of 29, but courses such as Creative Arts, Psychology and Social Care often do not deliver this. Similarly, certain universities as a whole provide no financial value. The Russell Group typically bucks this trend and offers good value for money, with one exception: The University of Glasgow.

Certain careers, such as a doctor or a lawyer, require you to go to university. Your degree is therefore valuable and opens up opportunities. However, for many young people, university has simply become a rite of passage. With degrees such as photography, baking technology and fashion pattern cutting (yes, that is a real degree) now appearing on some course lists, certain universities could easily be confused for a community centres.

There is the argument that university is about more than just the financial gain your degree provides. The diverse opportunities for personal growth are incredibly valuable. However, with most students taking out government loans to pay for their degree, the taxpayer is often footing the bill for this experience. Students who take degrees in non-academic subjects at universities outside the Russell Group often end up working in non-graduate roles and never pay back their loan in its entirety. This is detrimental for the individual, the government and taxpayers. 

Young people pursuing practical or vocational careers should be directed towards diplomas and apprenticeships which provide more relevant training and experience. The government’s proposed crackdown warns that it could strip institutions of their university status: this could be beneficial, enabling a clearer divide between academic institutions and vocational institutions. 

University should not be forced onto young people as something they have to go through, nor should it be seen as a rite of passage. Apprenticeships, diplomas and vocational training can provide as much life experience and, crucially, more real-world experience, than a traditional degree can. 

For the majority of jobs and careers out there, this is vital. People leaving university and being unable to find a job is a huge problem. If you have specific experience in your chosen field and the direct skills needed (as provided by a diploma or vocational training), then you are more likely to be able to get a job. Similarly, apprenticeships are a fantastic way of providing a certain amount of security while training. You get paid rather than paying and, if you do well, you may well have a job waiting for you at the end. This cannot be said of universities.  

A large problem with the education system in this country is that it often does not meet the skills need of our modern world. Traditional jobs such as dentist or engineer have an established route, however in the age of technology with the Fourth Industrial Revolution on the horizon, more and more new kinds of jobs are being created for which there is currently insufficient training. 

These jobs are more practical than academic and so a university often does not cater well to them as while degrees may show academic ability, specific training will still be required. On-the-job training with specific and modern qualifications must be prioritised in these areas and government funding should be directed to this form of education, otherwise the UK risks falling behind other technologically advanced countries. The government no longer having to foot the bill for financially unrewarding degrees would certainly be one way of re-directing funding. 

University should be an academic institution. The ‘crackdown’ on degrees should filter out unworthy courses and universities and ensure that young people are not being mis-sold degrees at £9250 a year when another route would serve them best. A one-size fits all approach simply does not work. 

  

Restaurant Review: Jee Saheb

Darius Parvizi-Wayne
-
0
Restaurant Review: Jee Saheb

Indian cuisine seems quite the enigma in Oxford. Of course, there are some fan favourites, with Chutneys on St Michael’s Street being particularly popular. However, perhaps the most renown of Indian restaurants, Jamal’s, is mostly known for its willingness to host crew dates, not its actual food. Away from the Italian juggernauts on George Street or the plethora of French food on Little Clarendon Street, perhaps the sparseness of Indian food is, in fact, advantageous for the restaurants that do already exist. Less competition to tackle? However, it would be a real shame if one’s lasting impression of Oxford’s Indian food scene is violently thrown pennies and overly loud cries of ‘Shoe!’

This all brings me to Jee Saheb, a secluded, casual spot offering a variety of traditional and modern dishes from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is tucked away on seemingly unexplored North Parade Avenue, a street that feels more Notting Hill than Central Oxford. As a result, despite its bare interior, Jee Saheb immediately feels cosy, a secret enclave away from the stress of essays, tutorials and Cornmarket. The staff are overwhelmingly friendly too: dressed uniformly, they seamlessly move throughout the restaurant, always directing smiles at their customers. There is a real sense of pride inside Jee Saheb, which makes it all the more surprising that the dishes took such a while to come out.

No one around me seems to care, however. Old family reunions, birthdays, friends just grabbing a quick bite, you name it – everyone is enjoying themselves, whilst indulging in some homely, delicious food. And when the food does finally come out, it truly is a joy.

A hearty Noorjahani Lamb for mains, its slightly sweet sauce balanced out by tender meat. The Chotpoti makes an impression too, a dish the size of your fist entirely packed with heat and flavour. A classical roadside dish originating from Bengal, it is typically consumed on Pahela Baishakh, a national holiday celebrating the first day of the Bengali calendar. Jee Saheb certainly brings this festive sensation to Oxford. Nevertheless, it may be the Naan that is most impressive. A faithful companion to any Indian meal, if done wrong it can sometimes be stale and bloat-inducing. Not at Jee Saheb. Light and utterly moreish, my friend and I happily sweep up the remnants of our mains with it, all the meat gone.

Here at Jee Saheb there are no frills, no gimmicks, no foolish experiments. This is classic, fantastic southern Asian cooking. Could you want much more?

Banishing elitist traditions, de-mystifying applications, and peer support

Sam Gillard and Oliver Shaw
-
0
Banishing elitist traditions, de-mystifying applications, and peer support

Recent revelations explain the eyebrows raised around me when I hesitantly took the plunge and applied to Oxford. Enthusiastic teachers and family members had been vital to my decision as I had seen zero effort by Oxford or Cambridge to sell themselves to able students from my town in the West Midlands, a region hardly famed for its Oxbridge track record. It is not only shocking how few black and ethnic minority students gain entrance, but how the odds are tilted unacceptably in favour of leading London private schools and the south-east.

The problem is one of outreach: it is all well and good basing entry entirely on much-vaunted ‘academic potential’, but what about those talented students who are simply too scared to try, totally unaware of their eligibility?

How, then, can we detoxify perceptions of applying to Oxford both among ethnic minority students, and schools above the Thames?

The debate is not solely about ethnicity: I’m white, ‘middle class’ and have always appreciated a little pomp and spectacle, but I still suffered an obvious culture shock upon arriving in Oxford. I’ve not quite taken to the gowns and quirky ceremonies just yet, but that’s not to say I never should have applied.

There is, nevertheless, much to be done. Remnants of that bygone age, of Old Boys – of Sebastian Flytes, Camerons and Osbornes – need to be laid to rest if we are to be rid of unhelpful stereotypes and encourage ‘normal’ and talented students to see Oxford in a better light. Sexist clubs and disturbing initiations must go, and academic prowess underlined.

Admissions tutors too need to be prepared to agree that an A-grade achieved at one type of school is not always equivalent to one achieved at another.

Yet it is important to remember that the problem is not entirely that of Oxford and Cambridge, or regional divides: ultimately, the decision to apply belongs to the applicant. Coming to Oxford has, after all, required a degree of acceptance of the eccentric and intriguingly old-fashioned, but at what point do the charms of ‘Hogwarts’ become elitist and inaccessible?

There is still work to do.

By Oliver Shaw

Recent figures released by the Sutton Trust reveal Oxford’s shocking access problem. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and to do so requires an understanding of what causes the problem.

It’s very easy to point a finger at forces acting beyond our control. The broader system of private schools ‘just being better’, perhaps. But it’s far more constructive to look past that to something that can be changed. From there, an issue that can be pinpointed as keeping disadvantaged students away from Oxford is the complexity of the application system.

Students at private schools have an easier time of this: they have a steady stream of history on their side. People from their school can come back and teach them the ins and outs of aptitude test structures and grill them in thorough practise interviews. They head into a situation of applying to Oxford already knowing exactly what’s expected of them, or at least with a pretty good idea.

To an extent, the University and some state schools are trying to address this. Access programmes such as UNIQ and school staff who advise on Oxbridge applications attempt to bridge the gap in knowledge and experience. But the fact is that access programmes cannot reach every necessary student and some teachers give advice that’s decades out of date.

Therein lies the other access problem Oxford is facing: the widespread perception of the University as an elitist institution inaccessible to anyone but the most perfect of students. Rumours fly from ill-informed but well-meaning staff members of the necessity of four A-Levels, A*A*A predictions for a course with AAA requirements, a string of A*s at GCSE, an instrument or two under your belt, and half a library of reading on every imaginable topic.

When it comes to figures such as those released in the Sutton Trust report, it’s easy to see why access is such a problem. Why bother applying to a university where the odds are stacked against you from the beginning, or when no one in your school is expected to gain results on par with the Oxbridge average?

The statistics cannot and will not change overnight. What can and should change, however, is the transparency of the application procedure and how many students therefore feel like they have the knowledge to at least give an Oxford application a shot.

By Sam Gillard

The Sutton Trust social mobility charity recently released statistics revealing that in the past three years, eight elite schools sent more students to Oxford and Cambridge than 2900 other schools combined. I went to one of those schools, Magdalen College School, which last year sent 44 people to Oxbridge out of a year group of around 150. Though I find these numbers appalling, I don’t find them surprising.

It is true that having more resources helps massively: we had teachers with Oxbridge backgrounds, we were given dedicated classes to prepare us for admissions tests, and those who wanted to could (mostly) apply for re-marks without considering the cost. But I don’t think that’s the only difference. One of the biggest access bottlenecks is applications: somebody from a school like mine is much more likely to apply than somebody with the same predicted grades from one of those 2900 other schools. That isn’t surprising when you consider that, in those schools, it would be rare for more than a few people to have got into Oxbridge in recent memory, whereas for me and my friends there were dozens of role models in the years above. On top of that, once you’re sending 40 or so people a year to Oxbridge, you’re going to attract applications from people for whom such a school is feasible and who want to follow suit. The whole thing begins to snowball, and the process is normalised. My tutors at Oxford have said that to do well in a philosophy degree, you have to talk about philosophy with your friends. It does seem to help: three people from Magdalen’s philosophy club are now philosophy first years at Oxford.

When I was 15, I did well enough in the Intermediate Maths Olympiad to be invited to a summer camp. There, I met other high-scoring young mathematicians, from all across the country, and from many different backgrounds and types of schools. When the week ended, many of us stayed in contact, discussing interesting maths problems, and later, university applications. Three years down the line, almost everybody applied to Oxbridge, and most got in. That camp offered some of the critical advantages that Magdalen did: connecting promising students, and letting them support each other. However, the camp was designed to be entirely meritocratic, and it only lasted a week.

The access debate is a complex one, and I am aware that peer support is only one facet. But I think this particular facet helps explain how so few schools can become so dominant. It’s not just about the money these pupils’ families may have. While I must admit that I might not have competed in the Olympiad if my school hadn’t made me, I have seen first hand that it is possible to create environments outside school that offer this same benefit and that are, importantly, accessible to more people.

Anonymous

True West Review – ‘this is truly sweet suburban silence’

Ayesha Seghal
-
0
True West Review – ‘this is truly sweet suburban silence’

Sam Shepard’s True West is a show that seems as relevant today as it did almost 30 years ago when it was first published. It explores the aspirations of real people, the American dream and the revelation that it is always just out of reach.

Kit Harington, playing clean-cut writer Austin, appears on the stage before the production begins. He sits at the table and writes a few words before wandering to the kitchen to get a glass of water. There is a sense that this is nothing out of the ordinary: this is the audience’s insight into the life of a normal, suburban man. Austin’s attempts to finish writing his screenplay are disrupted by older brother Lee, played by Johnny Flynn, complete with low sideburns and a short temper. The brothers appear to be opposites in every way, down to Austin’s proclamation that he “loves beginnings” whilst Lee is “partial to endings”. The two soon realise they are perhaps more similar than it initially appeared, with Lee longing for the stability that comes with a regular job, and Austin coveting Lee’s exciting lifestyle in the desert.

The staging is sublime ­– Harington lights a cigarette before plunging the stage into darkness and silence, accompanied only by candlelight. This is truly ‘sweet suburban silence’. Harington and Flynn do not rush: they savour the silences and lean into them, drawing the audience into indescribable tension. Any set alterations are performed in almost complete darkness, offset by funky ska-music. The set itself is interesting, with forced perception allowing for minimal set changes except to force the room deeper into disarray as the play progresses. This is the work of Jon Bausor, set director and costume designer, who creates an utterly convincing 80s-era setting.

Overall, act one is slow-moving, serving to establish the chalk-and-cheese personalities of Austin and Lee. This is possibly where the play falls down, as there seems to be no direction for the plot to move in. Flynn takes the limelight here as a slightly manic, drunken thief compared to Harington’s Austin who pales in comparison. By the end of the first act, however, we begin to see Austin’s slow descent into insanity, prompted by Lee’s overnight success. It is here that Harington shines as the frenzied writer desperate to escape his ordinary life and pushed to the edge by his own ambition. Some laughs are garnered, particularly in Harington’s scene in the second act accompanied by eight toasters and a whole lot of bread. The second act is certainly more entertaining than the first, with the action picking up and the brothers seeming to resent each other more by the minute.

True West was an enjoyable performance – the actors were polished and professional, featuring Donald Sage Mackay and Madeleine Potter as excellent supporting actors as a film producer and the brothers’ mother respectively. The first act is slow and drawn-out, though this only makes the second act more enjoyable in comparison. Harington and Flynn are compelling as typical American westerners who want what the other has, proving that the grass really may not be greener on the other side.

Chanel Métiers d’Art: the star-spangled update Lagerfeld needed

-
0
Chanel Métiers d’Art: the star-spangled update Lagerfeld needed

In classic Lagerfeld style, Chanel Pre-Fall AW19 took place against the breathtaking backdrop of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Temple of Dendur. And this time, the collection was as enchanting as its surroundings.

Previous fashion weeks have seen Chanel transform the Grand Palais into an authentic leaf-strewn forest, a beach complete with a sand runway, and a towering, flowing waterfall. Yet for some, the accompanying lines (such as the dull, grey suits of the AW18 collection) have fallen decidedly flat in recent years. Was Lagerfeld falling behind in the wake of fresh new designers like Virgil Abloh and Simon Porte Jacquemus?

If his most recent collection is anything to go by, I would argue not. The line draws inspiration from Ancient Greece, yet manages to retain a distinctly modern feel through the use of sparkling metallics and edgy black leather – a far cry from Chanel’s usual conservative tweed. Whilst the theme brought a sense of mysticism to the show, Lagerfeld’s philosophy was abundantly clear: this season, more is more.

The show began in a relatively understated manner. Models took to the runway in outfits that brought a festive feel with their glittering fabrics, yet retained the essence of Chanel, combining smart jacket and skirt combinations with heavy, statement jewelry. As the presentation went on, however, the line unveiled pieces that rendered the label’s image practically unrecognisable; gold mini-dresses dripping with coloured jewels followed black leather trench coats, paired with knee-high metallic boots. Embellishment was key, with black, gold and blue sequins adorning structured collars and shoulders.

Whilst Chanel might not usually seem like the first port of call for glamorous evening-wear, this collection might just be the perfect inspiration for a festive Christmas-party outfit. Lagerfeld’s line is comfortingly wearable in comparison to those presented by houses such as Versace, whose hectic mix of prints seems intimidating and unworkable off the runway. Valentino points us towards red, ruffles, and seemingly nothing else – Christmassy, for sure, yet not especially varied or exciting.

So what can we take away from Lagerfeld’s latest offering? For those tired of the conventional girly mini-dress, opt for a more androgynous trouser suit, complete with an oversized jacket and bold, printed shirt. The classic long evening dress is given a glitzy update, encouraging flowing, sheer fabrics to be layered with beautiful embellished mini-skirts and bandeaus. Practicality need not be sacrificed in favour of style; think bright, graphic knitwear (to be paired with dazzling metallic trousers if you’re feeling really adventurous). And for accessories? The line sees cuffs and collars take centre stage; forget delicate, barely-there necklaces – this season is all about statement gold pieces encrusted with as many jewels and beads as possible.

With the recent announcement as that of May 2019, Chanel will no longer use exotic skins and fur in its future collections; could Lagerfeld be heading towards a more modern, less traditional brand image for Chanel? The world of fashion is certainly undergoing a critical period of change, seeing younger generations call for a more up-to-date and sustainable industry, and it is undoubtedly the responsibility of designers to meet this demand or else risk losing credibility. Whilst the collection divided opinion amongst critics, with some branding it OTT and simplistic, it no doubt marks an attempt by Lagerfeld to keep Chanel relevant in such a swiftly modernising industry – and this can surely be no bad thing.

It might displease hardened traditionalists, but I for one am excited to see what the future holds for Chanel.

 

Poetry in motion: the nature of lyrics

-
0
Poetry in motion: the nature of lyrics

With the recent publication of Kate Bush’s selected lyrics, How to Be Invisible (Faber & Faber), the question as to whether lyrics should be considered poetry’s equal – which has remained for me a pressing one ever since I first fell in love with Lana Del Rey one lonely January in 2015 – demands interrogation.

The novelist David Mitchell, in his introduction to Bush’s collection, seems anxious to maintain a distinction, describing the lyrics in the book as “presented in a poetry format […] but […] avowedly not poetry”. He talks of lyrics on a page as “a boat in dry-dock”, without the “elements that buoy them and determine their velocity”. Yet I would call into question the extent to which this is true of Bush’s lyrics, or indeed those of any songwriter.

Perhaps when reading lyrics outside a musical context we do not experience them as the song from which they originate but as something entirely new, which is itself no less valid. Is it not a productive act to have the lyrics “buoy[ed]” entirely by the reader, without the influence of music to establish an over-arching mood, a tempo, and an intensity? It is a process which must, by virtue of its difference, generate new, alternative readings, and is this not the nature of literature? When Mitchell says that Bush’s lyrics “work […] in similar mysterious ways” to literature, does he not mean that they in fact are literature themselves?

This question of lyrics as literature is by no means untrodden ground. Bob Dylan’s winning of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2016 sparked debate, and the publication earlier this year of Florence Welch’s book of lyrics and poems Useless Magic blurred genre lines further still. It is interesting that in her preface Welch describes her songs as “bigger and stronger than [she] is”, whilst the act of “just writ[ing] something down and let[ting] it stay there, on the page, seems to [her] an enormously vulnerable thing”. What Welch is touching upon here is the same “buoy[ing]” up identified by Mitchell, but where for him the music serves to determine the inferred meaning from the words, for Welch, music is an act of retreat behind sound when worlds alone say so very much. This is literature’s strength piercing the medium of song.

In the preface Welch goes on to describe how, for her, poetry and lyrics “have started to bleed into each other”, yet much the same can be said for all number of artists. Lana Del Rey, for example, in her 2012 EP Paradise, takes the name of her song ‘Body Electric’ from the Walt Whitman poem ‘I Sing the Body Electric’; the music video of her single ‘Ride’ draws heavily in its imagery from the poems of Allen Ginsberg, an influence which sees its culmination in her 2013 short film Tropico with its direct quotation of Ginsberg’s ‘Howl’. Likewise, the Tennyson quote on the back cover of Bush’s masterpiece The Hounds of Love is just one example of the rich intertextual tapestry so characteristic of her work, and Mary Oliver begins her 2012 collection A Thousand Mornings with Bob Dylan epigraphs: clearly, lyricists can’t escape the influence of poets, and vice versa.

Lyrics, then, seem hardly to differ from poetry in any substantial way. Indeed, the two media can often be in dialogue with one another to such an extent that they become one, as in the work of poet-cum-rapper Kate Tempest (for example, Let Them Eat Chaos). The only real difference between a set of lyrics and a poem of Bush’s How to Be Invisible is that the lyric-writer will make far more liberal use of repetition than most poets would allow themselves to, as if somehow, we expect more of words when they are meant for the page; demand that each one mean something new and take us a little further onwards towards meaning. Perhaps – erroneously – we expect more from words when they are written down. Should we not treat our lyrics with the same respect as we treat our poems? And should we not be as kind to our poems as to our lyrics, forgiving when reiteration is all poet has to offer? Because a song is as much a poem as a poem is a song, in that both linger in the mind, and change the way we see the world around us. So the next time someone suggests to you that those lyrics you prize, those lyrics that you hold fast to your heart in the night, those lyrics that saw you through, are not worthy of the name ‘literature’, you need only keep in mind Bush’s refrain from ‘The Song of Solomon’: “Don’t want excuses, yeah / Write me your poetry in motion”, such poetic movement being the true nature of lyrics.

Oxford’s pledge to support estranged students receives mixed response

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
Oxford’s pledge to support estranged students receives mixed response

Oxford University has pledged to provide bursaries, accommodation, and unlimited counselling to students who are estranged from their families, following a campaign by the Oxford SU.

As part of the Stand Alone pledge, Oxford will offer bursaries of up to £7,200 a year to help estranged students meet the costs of living and will lift all caps on counselling services. The University also pledged to provide them with vacation accommodation and, where possible, to house them with other students to minimise isolation.

Only students who are registered as estranged with the Student Loans Company (SLC) will qualify for the full bursary. According to the SU, 17 students at Oxford are recorded as ‘legally estranged’ by the SLC, although they estimate the figure could be as many as 200 based on comparisons with other similar institutions.

The reliance of current schemes on SLC registration was previously criticised by the SU due to difficulties involved in providing adequate proof of estrangement. The SU also pointed out that a student cannot declare their estranged status on platforms such as Ucas.

Those who are determined by the University to be estranged, but who are not registered with the SLC, can apply for a living cost supplement of up to £3,000 a year.

One estranged student told Cherwell: “If they’re taking such a narrow definition of estrangement I can’t really see it being an effective policy. By giving those who don’t fit in the definition significantly less funding than those who do, they might actually increase the stigma around asking for help. It makes it seem like if you don’t tick a certain box, your problems matter less.

“Setting a minimum household income level seems a bit counter-productive, and doesn’t help estranged students whose family are outright refusing to give financial support.”

Students with a household income of over £27,000 a year will also be restricted to the reduced supplement, despite not receiving any parental financial support.

The SU welfare and equal opportunities officer Ellie Macdonald described the announcement as “fantastic”, saying:

“In the summer Oxford SU undertook a research project to understand what issues estranged students faced at the University of Oxford. We were overwhelmed by the response of students who for the first the time shone a light onto their university experiences here.

“This report produced recommendations that we will be working with the collegiate university to meet in the next two years.”

In its earlier report, the SU had heavily criticised existing financial support for its reliance on the SLC definition, which requires that the individual not to have had contact with their parents for twelve months prior to the start of their course.

The same report noted that many students do not cut off contact with their family until they are already at university, rendering them illegible for official estranged status.

One student interviewed described being forced to maintain contact with an abusive family out of concern that they would not qualify as legally estranged if they cut off contact whilst already at university.

The SU report stated: “All of the participants who answered the question ‘If you are not financially and/or physically estranged from your parents, is that because it would be dangerous to be in that position either emotionally and/or financially?’ answered yes, with different reasons ranging from fear of physical violence, to emotional abuse.

“Many estranged students have not told their parents of their estrangement and will just be living apart from them with no contact. Because of the (potentially) extreme repercussions, it is clear that many students are not able to declare themselves estranged and gain help from student finances.”

According to Stand Alone, finding the proof required to fit the legal definition of estrangement is the most common complaint for estranged students trying to access finance. The SU estimated that the SLC definition underestimates the extent of estrangement at Oxford by a factor of 12 to 1.

Oxford and Cambridge are the eighth and ninth Russell Group universities to take the pledge. The Vice-Chancellor has invited estranged students to tea, “to discuss their experiences of estrangement and how the university can help them further.”

From Deontay to Divock: a ‘Super Sunday’ done right

-
0
From Deontay to Divock: a ‘Super Sunday’ done right

As I sit watching Wolves beat Newcastle away from home in the only game on offer on this ‘Super Sunday’, I can’t help but think back to last weekend, when ‘Super Sunday’ was done right.

It all started in Wetherspoons at 10pm, on a Saturday night in Lancaster. Two friends and I had just bought tickets to see the Fury vs Wilder fight in the pub the next morning, and with Fury a hero in these parts, being known to frequent the fine Lancaster establishments that we would be visiting that night, it promised to be a big one. That’s not even mentioning what the afternoon had in store. After all, Chelsea vs Fulham, Arsenal vs Tottenham and Liverpool vs Everton weren’t going to watch themselves.

Sitting at Table 6 (or was it 9?), we calculated that we had about seven hours to fill until the fight. An odyssey around town ensued, giving me time to catch up with the lads as this was the first night back of the vac. Several hours and too many VK’s later, there we were in Lancaster’s so-called ‘Gin Palace’ with the 150 other people stupid enough to stay out for the fight. “Tyson Fury, he’s one of our own” echoed around the Palace as Fury made his walk to the ring.

Fury was in control from the first bell, showing no signs of the three years it had been since his last major fight. He was not just comfortable, he was cocky, hiding his hands and playing with Wilder in the early stages. It all seemed plain sailing for Fury, and the Lancaster crowd was buoyed seeing the BT scorecard stating him to have won seven of the opening eight rounds. But then Wilder struck, knocking Fury down in the 9th. Fury managed to get up and regain control, and when the bell rung for the final round everyone believed that he was still ahead. But Wilder got him again, and with a harder knockdown this time. Fury seemed defeated, with limbs spread all over the canvas, only then to rise like The Undertaker and hang on until the end of the round. Cheers erupted in the pub, with the consensus that despite two knockdowns, hometown hero Fury had done enough. The judges thought differently however, and to the dismay of everyone who had stayed up so late, a draw was declared.

We felt he was wronged, but there was no time to dwell on the disappointment, as our attention turned to the football which was to start just six hours later. After a quick stop at McDonald’s, I was home by 7.00am.

Despite my alarm’s best efforts, I could not rise out of bed to make the start of the early kick-off like Fury rose off the canvas in the 12th. The second half of Chelsea vs Fulham would have to do, and we were in the pub once more 1.30pm, with seven hours between the last pint of the morning and the first one of the afternoon – an unhealthy but necessary move.

Half-asleep, we saw Loftus-Cheek net for Chelsea in what seemed like a comfortable win against a struggling Fulham. Then it was the big one, the North London Derby. Arsenal flew out of the blocks and took a deserved lead through Aubameyang. Eric Dier then equalised, whose subsequent celebration provoked a mass brawl between the two sides, picking up where Fury and Wilder had left off. Harry Kane put Spurs ahead with a penalty shortly after and it was 2-1 at the break. The game just got better and better in the second half, as Aubameyang equalised with a superb finish from outside the box, and Lacazette put Arsenal back in front with a deflected effort before Lucas Torreira, the man of the match, went through and killed the game. The game had everything, and made me forget my hangover completely – or was I still drunk from the night before?

After that, just when I needed something to keep me going in my fatigued state, Liverpool vs Everton sadly came along. Where Arsenal vs Spurs had been the perfect derby, this was anything but. I started to drift off, and although tempted to leave I stayed knowing that anything can happen in football, especially in a game like this. Then, in the 96th minute, a Pickford blunder from a skewed Van Dijk volley left it for Divock Origi of all people to head home. The pub erupted once more, as Klopp crazily ran onto the pitch in celebration, and the referee’s whistle just moments later confirmed the dramatic victory.

It was a crazy end to a crazy day, and was the best day of sport I can remember in a long time. Why can’t all ‘Super Sundays’ start on a Saturday night?

 

Airbrushing is a practice that reinforces unattainable societal norms

Lottie Sellers
-
0
Airbrushing is a practice that reinforces unattainable societal norms

Jameela Jamil recently commented, writing for the BBC’s ‘100 Women’, that airbrushing is ‘a disgusting tool that has been weaponised, mainly against women’, adding her voice to an increasingly long list of people that have spoken out against the practice.

Whilst airbrushing is nothing new (it has effectively existed for as long as photography) it has increased in sophistication with the advent of computers and sophisticated programmes such as Photoshop, which allow minute and almost imperceptible ‘improvements’ or changes to be made to a photo. In fact, even before photography Oliver Cromwell’s alleged demand for his portrait to be painted ‘warts and all’ demonstrates how it has always been standard practice for the subjects of images to quietly have their perceived blemishes and imperfections removed.

When it comes to paintings, the viewer expects there will be a gap between the work itself and the thing it depicts, but when we look at a photograph, we can expect not just to see an interpretation of the subject, but absolute, undiluted reality. Just googling ‘photography’ leads to dozens upon dozens of quotes relating to the perfectly captured moment frozen in time that a photo is seen to represent. Supposedly, the camera never lies and so it is easy to believe that the image we see is some kind of truth or fact, be it of someone’s smoothie in an aesthetic coffee shop or a youthful-looking celebrity advertising a new anti-ageing moisturiser.

Of course, this is patently untrue. Anyone with an Instagram account knows that no small amount of consideration typically goes into creating a seemingly effortless post. There’s been an increasing amount of discussion from social-media stars about how their photographically ‘perfect’ lives are not so perfect in reality; this could seem obvious, but when casually scrolling it’s easy to assume that something glanced at for a few seconds is reality.

Few images are really what they seem to be at first glance. However, airbrushing represents a particularly insidious concern. It takes the ability to manipulate and change images far from the realms of better lighting, or professional makeup and styling, into things which simply cannot be achieved in real life. We look at photographs and can tell that they have been edited: no one’s hair is that smooth, no-one’s skin is that flawless and so on. But at the same time, as numerous studies have proven, it is still damaging to self-confidence. Airbrushing does nothing but harm, and whilst it doesn’t always dupe consumers and viewers outright, it represents a war of attrition which chips away at our happiness to replace it with a quietly omnipresent sense of dissatisfaction with our very existences.

In the UK, and indeed across the rest of the world, body-confidence is a pervasive concern. These issues cover a range of appearance-related issues, from weight to skin colour to conformity to gender norms. The role of the media in this is crucial. Over two-thirds of the respondents to the 2016 Dove Self-Esteem survey (in this case, women and girls across thirteen different countries) cited television, magazines, and social media, to name a few, as the main causes of their worries about appearance. These mediums are the main vehicles by which we are confronted with edited, unrealistic images in a world such as ours that is geared towards consumption.

Similarly, if the products we see advertised are worth our money, they ought to be able to stand on their own without yet another layer of Photoshop-based enhancement. But the fact remains that airbrushing is a highly effective marketing technique to present an apparently perfect product for an apparently perfect person living an apparently perfect life in order to sell products to consumers who are pressured to aspire to that tantalising, but necessarily out of reach, world.

There are further, deeper ills to consider: airbrushing is a practice that reinforces unattainable societal norms and boundaries, seeking not just to beautify, but to exclude and erase. It imposes a notion of the ‘perfect’ which tends to be light-skinned, of a certain body shape (and always able-bodied), conforming to gender binaries and youthful. Airbrushing suggests the existence of an ‘ideal’ person and is therefore a manifestation of structures of power in our society which marginalise and oppress.

Whilst banning airbrushing would not entirely destroy these structures, nor the pervasive and fickle beauty norms imposed upon so many of us in so many areas of our lives, it would go some way in ensuring we are confronted with pictures of real people and real bodies with diversity, showing us that this is something to be celebrated. Ultimately, airbrushing serves no positive purpose. At the very best, it is unnecessary; at worst, it is a harmful tool of oppression. It seems we have a way to go yet, but Jameela Jamil’s call for an end to the practice is a welcome addition to a discourse that will hopefully become a clamour of voices loud enough that it cannot be ignored.

Fast fashion means a slow death for the planet this Christmas

Katherine Cooper
-
0
Fast fashion means a slow death for the planet this Christmas

Fast fashion items are the cheap and trendy garments found filling up high-street stores across the globe. In order to generate profit, companies will create items which echo those in high fashion but at a fraction of the production cost and market price, allowing trends to be followed and then swiftly abandoned.

At Christmas, the average family will increase spending on clothes by 43%. This, of course, means that demand for fast fashion will increase, as a result of consumers buying easy Christmas presents or yet another tragic, disposable Christmas jumper. Fast fashion providers will therefore churn out even more products at even lower prices to boost profit, evident in the Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and Christmas sales.

At first glance, this all seems great: more clothes for us, lower prices, and a boost to the economy. It’s a Christmas miracle.

However, we must stop and think about the environmental costs that come with producing vast quantities of clothes. In China, farmers downstream of clothing factories have been able to predict fashion trends based on the colour of the water that flows past them. Textile dyeing is the second largest polluter of water after agriculture, and the textile industry on the whole causes more pollution than international shipping and aviation combined.

Before starting to explore the alternatives to fast fashion, I want to add a little disclaimer that fast fashion giants exist to make profit and should therefore not dictate what you wear. The Instagram campaigns by H&M and the carefully curated mannequins in Topshop windows are not a fashion standard. You do not have to emulate fast fashion. I think that the end goal should be to make fast fashion sustainable, however, the high street is not the gospel on what is fashionable and what isn’t.

A quick Google search on how to make sustainable fashion choices reveals that the most commonly suggested option is charity shopping. This is far more sustainable than shopping for new clothing as there is no demand created for natural resources. Plus, charity shops may produce especially lucrative finds around Christmas thanks to unwanted gifts and ill-fitting sale purchases. In Oxford, I’d highly recommend the charity shops on Cowley Road.

Please remember to also donate your own unwanted clothes to charity shops in order to keep the sustainable cycle going. Other second-hand clothing options such as vintage sales, eBay and Depop are all also brilliant for supporting sustainable fashion due to their minimal demand for new products, again producing no strain on resources. Alternatively, clothing swaps amongst friends are a fun and sustainable way to refresh your wardrobe.

If you’re still buying new clothes, there are ways to do so with greater mindfulness and awareness. Smaller, independent retailers with greater transparency in their production chains and manufacturing processes are likely to be your most sustainable option. Many retailers even use recycled material for their clothes, such as Patagonia, Lucy and Yak, and Batoko.

It is true, however, that these products often come with a heftier price tag. However, some fast fashion companies do offer compromises between environmental and financial sustainability, with high-street brands introducing cheaper, sustainable lines such as H&M Conscious. I feel that the best approach is to make fast fashion sustainable rather than to exclusively support financially inaccessible forms of sustainable fashion; it is therefore important to show fast fashion giants that there is a demand for sustainable clothing.

Making your clothes last longer also helps to reduce the detrimental impact of fast fashion. The tag #VisibleMending offers some fantastic ideas for how to make your clothes remain wearable and beautiful, and the Christmas/New Year period is a wonderful time to try this out – perhaps you could even make it a resolution! Now’s the time to take advantage of Christmas sales and purchase a sewing machine. Not only can you mend clothes this way, but you can also try using recycled or second-hand fabric to make your own clothes. It’s the perfect creative outlet that simultaneously helps the planet!

The topic of sustainability is an important one, especially at Christmas when the materialism of the 21st century is perhaps most evident. In order to combat the devastating effects of the fashion industry on our planet, sustainability must become a focus for us all when we consider what we wear. We interact with fashion on the daily, so changing the way in which we purchase it can be one of the most effective ways to do your bit and help the planet.

 

 

 

 

1...671672673...2,517Page 672 of 2,517

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