Wednesday 8th October 2025
Blog Page 807

Michaelmas reflections of a fresher

0

“I suppose you still think Oxford’s really fun, don’t you?” I’ve just admitted to a third year at the bus stop that I am, indeed, a fresher. And my answer to the question? Yes, I do.

Perhaps I’m still in the ‘honeymoon period’. Having exchanged vows at that solemn marriage ceremony that is matriculation, I’m tied to the place, ’til graduation do us part. When I looked in the mirror at ‘Ede & Ravenscroft’, wearing my subfusc and (holding) my cap, I’ll admit I caught my breath like a bride would in her wedding dress. Equally I caught my breath when the shop assistant broke it to me that it would be £64.99. Off I went to the Primark of subfusc, ‘Shepherd and Woodward’, where a more manageable £25 was handed over.

During the actual, albeit rather brief, ceremony, sitting in the Sheldonian as one of the thousands of students on the conveyor belt being “formally initiated into the University”, I looked at the awestruck faces in front of me. We had all stopped feeling smug by the Thursday of fresher’s week. Reality had caught up. I wonder if the University has ever been jilted at the altar, if one fresher-fiancé with cold feet has been overwhelmed by the commitment. I could relate. Oxford is like an incredibly high-maintenance spouse who gives just enough to make the relationship worth it. It’s as Marilyn Monroe said: “If you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best.” While Ms Monroe may not exactly be a relationship guru, this is the way many of us see Oxford – it’s the beginning of a new relationship.

The magic of it is still there for me. I’m still excited to glance up at the RadCam’s ceiling while labouring over an essay (which, at best, will be branded with the phrase ‘some improvement’ at my next tute). I still explore the city: the parks, the meadows, the weird side streets. And who could forget Fudge Kitchen…I’m on my third loyalty card already. Every time I have a pint in a new pub I feel as though I have discovered yet another trait of my new partner, as we slowly become better acquainted.

Fresher’s week was fun, but couldn’t mask the looming inevitability that reality was on its way. Yet for me it never fully set in. Yes, I get that libraries, lectures and referencing aren’t exactly part of the typical holiday experience, but you have to at least like your subject to be here, so is it really so bad? Naturally, I was overwhelmed at the Fresher’s Fair, and, like most naive freshers, signed up to things which would only clog up my inbox. The emails from Amnesty International constantly remind me I won’t be going to Kenya on that humanitarian mission, as I thought I might be for the duration it took to tap my details into the spreadsheet. However, among these there were some things which only the unique enthusiasm of being a fresher gave me the courage to try.

My relationship with Oxford wasn’t the only new one I would be embarking on – I was going to have to make some friends. My tutor told me at our first meeting, ‘We like to throw you in the deep end first, watch you try and swim, throw you a life-ring and then show you how to do it’. I suppose friends are like arm-bands in this metaphor – they can’t teach you to swim, but they help you catch your breath and float while you give it a go. So I guess it only makes sense, the speed at which freshers tend to bond. But it made me suspicious. Initially, I couldn’t stop myself thinking, “they can’t all be this nice. One of them must be a backstabbing snake.” I still haven’t identified such a snake, but I really don’t think these relationships are all still simply in the ‘honeymoon stage’ too.

College bops are the perfect example of how fortunate I’ve been. At first, I thought I was stronger than the juice – Christ, I even pre’d. I was put to bed long before 11pm and woke up to a glass of water and a painkiller on the bedside table, a bin strategically placed on the floor next to my head. All from people I’d known less than a week. Then there’s the post-bop trip to A&E after my friend sustained an injury dancing to ‘Man’s Not Hot’. We sat waiting for hours, me dressed as a fairy and her as (young) Stalin. We ended the night on a high with a Soloman’s.

It’s not all smiles and rainbows, parts of Oxford are wearing a little thin. After all, something like 50% of marriages do end in divorce. There’s the perilous burden of work, Eduroam, approaching deadlines, the Bridge queue, never feeling quite good enough and of course the cost of a single rum and coke being basically half my student loan. Those endearing quirks may soon become irritating, but even for the broken-in there must be something to make it worth sticking around for – only 1.3% of Oxford students walk-out, compared with the national average of 7.4%. Maybe it’s for the degree (and wow have we put in the work to get here), but could it be that the feelings of excitement and wonder linger?

At least for now, I’m still enchanted with Oxford. I only have eight terms left here, so I’ll try to keep them, and myself, fresh.

Review: ‘Women & Power: A Manifesto’ by Mary Beard

0

“Shut up you bitch”, “I’m going to cut off your head and rape it”, “you filthy old slut”: a brief sample of some of the less graphic online abuse targeted at Mary Beard in recent years. Beard, a true titan of the study of classical antiquity, has been the recipient of such vile attacks simply for engaging in public debate on pertinent issues, often within her own area of expertise. In August of this year she was subjected to incredible vitriol following her assertion of the ethnic diversity of Roman Britain, with an American author even wading into the debate with the claim that she was “talking bullshit”.

In Women & Power, Beard provides a diagnosis of the misogyny from which such attempts to silence women arise, situating modern examples from the Western world in parallel with tales from the classical world. She begins the first section of the book, ‘The Public Voice of Women’, by citing the manner in which Telemachus dismisses his mother Penelope in The Odyssey – the first recorded example of a man telling a woman to “shut up”. This archetypal interaction is easily applied to the modern day, with Beard using the example of the Punch cartoon of a boardroom: “That’s an excellent suggestion, Miss Triggs. Perhaps one of the men here would like to make it”, to typify the way in which the female voice continues to be dismissed.

Beard continues to use classical examples to contextualise and explain the abuse which public female speech continues to attract. She notes that those who often succeed in being heard are those women who mimic features of male rhetoric, such as an early Roman woman Maesia, who successfully defended herself in the courts, and who was described as the ‘androgyne’ for her alleged male nature. More recent examples include Margaret Thatcher, who underwent speech therapy to deepen the tone of her voice – supposedly thereby giving it greater authority.

This connects to the second section, ‘Women in Power’, in which she argues that women are excluded by existing power structures, particularly as the cultural image of a powerful figure is very much still that of a male, and that there exists no template for a powerful woman – stating that even if she were to try to imagine a female professor she would struggle to think of someone like herself in her role. In fact, the stereotype of a powerful woman may only be that of one who resembles their male counterpart. Here, Beard uses the example of the trouser suit worn by female politicians such as Hilary Clinton, as a way in which women have to ‘fit the part of power’.

Beard goes on to argue that this is encouraged by the representations of women who possess power as having acquired it through illegitimate means – for example, the headline ‘Women prepare for a Power Grab in Church, Police and BBC’ in early 2017 certainly says a lot about society’s perceptions of women’s relationship with power: that it is not theirs to ‘take’. The attempts to discredit powerful women, she argues, have their roots in the classical world – perhaps best exemplified by the use of the Medusa theme, which has been applied to Theresa May, Angela Merkel, and most graphically Hilary Clinton, who during the election campaign was repeatedly presented as the decapitated Medusa, the handiwork of Donald Trump, in the guise of Perseus.

My only issue with the book was that Beard did not really address the position of women of minority groups in relation to power. Although at times implicit, this was not properly addressed, namely the relationship between racism and misogyny as something that limits specifically women of colour in the public domain. Whilst reading her discussion of the depiction of female politicians in the media I was surprised by her omission of the extreme vilification of Diane Abbot that took place during the 2017 general election campaign following an unfortunate interview appearance, whilst Boris Johnson’s similarly blundering interviews were dismissed as mere slip ups. That is not to say that her ability as a politician should not be criticised, but the disproportionate abuse to which she was subjected (and continues to be so), such as an excruciatingly humiliating television interview in which she was made to listen to a recording of the incident, is simply unfair, and unrivalled by that experienced by any other white male or female politicians. Although I did go on to find this example briefly mentioned in the afterword, the issue should have been given much greater attention in the main body of the book.

Women & Power claims to offer some form of remedy to the problems identified, and it is true that Beard does provide interesting insight by questioning general preconceptions about women and authority. She proposes that to address the ‘Miss Triggs question’ we should reassess our perceptions of what constitutes spoken authority; rather than through superficial means, such as assimilating characteristics of male speech, we should reconsider what and who we associate with spoken authority and why. She also suggests that we redefine our idea of what ‘power’ is – arguing that it currently does not accommodate women, as the structure is ‘already coded as male’. This, she claims, should involve deconstructing our definition of ‘power’ so that it is not viewed as a possession, and crucially so that it does not have to involve public prestige, using the example of the little-known women who founded the Black Lives Matter movement. Whilst these are striking musings on the concept of power, I do wonder whether they can be considered more than that; I am not sure that the book merits the claim of being a ‘manifesto’, as it does seem to prompt more questions than it answers (which is by no means a criticism).

Whilst definitely not a flawless ‘modern feminist classic’, as has been claimed by some reviewers, this really is a fascinating read, as Beard identifies common features of women’s experience in the public sphere, but offers a new angle through her use of examples from the classical world, which demonstrates that often these issues transcend historical periods. Women & Power, furthermore, is the perfect retaliation to the base insults of Beard’s aggressors, as an intelligent, concise, cogently delivered and persuasive work; she is most certainly not a woman who will be silenced.

Blue passports remind us that Brexit is not for the young

3

“For we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them”, wrote George Eliot in Middlemarch. The metaphor in which Theresa May has recently got her thoughts entangled is that blue is good and burgundy is bad. With the announcement of the return of the ‘iconic’ blue passport, blue now means an assertion of sovereignty whilst burgundy is a surrender of independence.

We like symbols. Symbols are important. They express immediately, and in ways often more powerful than words, complex systems of emotions, thoughts, concepts. They give form to the abstract and have a unique and unifying force. But the Brexiters heralding the second coming of the blue passport as a ‘victory’ over the EU are farcically mistaken. It is merely the victory of style over substance.

The rhetoric enveloping the blue passport reveals what lies at the heart of Brexit: the generational divide. Getting our blue passports ‘back’, as headlines from The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express and others proclaimed, is a meaningless statement for millions of Britons. When Scottish Labour Press officer Gordon McKee tweeted: “I’m not getting a blue passport ‘back’, I’ve never had one”, he spoke for everyone born after 1988, when Britain voluntarily adopted the colour burgundy. Rather than May’s symbol of sovereignty, the former Thatcher aide Charles Powell views the blue passport as a symbol of “nostalgia on which the predominantly elderly Brexit constituency thrives”.

This nostalgia for our old passports, and the hysteria among Brexiters for getting them ‘back’, is absurd. Many Brexiters were bemused to find that the Conservatives’ design for the new passport looks quite different to the old model. Isn’t that shade of blue a bit lighter than before? Weren’t the old ones sort of…black? Why isn’t it going to be hardback again?

There is a touch of irony to all this: getting our old passports ‘back’ really means conforming to global standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal. (More foreign bureaucrats). These standards mean no more hardbacks. Nor will the colour chosen by May’s team be the same as the old. We are simply getting a passport void of all its current freedoms, but one that shares a closer resemblance to the colour of the party who got us in this mess in the first place. Some commentators have sardonically noted that the shade of blue can be described as “imperial”. Our own special blend of rose-tinted, imperial blue.

All talk of getting our passports ‘back’ is therefore ridiculous. The ‘old’ is a chimera. We will really be getting something new, something a bit disappointing, with a vague resemblance to a past which is now impossible to reconstruct and revive. Is that not the whole essence of Brexit?

May’s decision has provoked further demonising of the EU. The Sun’s subheading ‘The Government has agreed…to scrap the EU’s burgundy model, enforced on the nation from 1988’ construes our current passport as a symbol of oppression. But nothing was ‘enforced’ on Britain. As has been pointed out over the past week, there was nothing legally binding in the agreement: Croatia chose to retain its passport colour when joining the EU in 2013. It was not bludgeoned by ‘Brussels bureaucrats’ for its decision, nor is it any more of a nation because its passports are not burgundy.

Beneath this symbolism lies not only what David Lammy MP called ‘misguided imperial undertones’, but a reminder of how far the Brexiters’ promises have unravelled. With substantial promises of a properly funded post-Brexit NHS having evaporated last year, the Tories must now settle for mere symbols, and dress them up as ‘victories’.

But how can a victory be a victory when there is no opposition? What does the EU care for the colour of our passports? This sudden valuing of symbols over substance reveals a desperation – the need to give the public some good news before the end of the year. So, like that great-aunt with no idea what to buy her great-nieces-and-nephews for Christmas, May has given us her botched ‘Brexmas’ present, outdated, unwanted and redundant.

Rather than a defining reaffirmation of our national identity, the blue passport reveals the frailty of that which it proclaims. An Observer editorial wryly noted “a blue passport will not assuage Britain’s identity crisis – it symbolises it”. The fractured ‘nostalgic’ symbolism is a thin veneer for Britain’s irrepressible anxiety about its current place in the world. We have traded the privileges of the burgundy passport for the decrepitude of the blue.

Brexit, from the start, has been wrapped up in metaphors. The blue passport odyssey is simply the latest, and one which, pitiably, the Brexiters seem unable to disentangle themselves.

Keep your health afloat and stay in the boat

0

The mornings are getting colder, the alarm clock is blaring at 5:30am and you still haven’t made up an erg score to put on the spreadsheet. It is probably at around this time that you wonder why you made the decision to carry on rowing into Hilary term.

When weighing up the choice between a few extra hours in bed or a cycle ride along a bumpy toe-path before the sun has come up, thinking about the infamously intense ‘erg’ you’ll have to complete on top of your morning outing could easily have you quitting rowing for good. Yet erging can rapidly develop into a fun and rewarding challenge if you do it with your fellow crew members. The beneficial effects on your fitness are many and varied and it is an excellent way to burn off all of those Christmas calories.

Moreover, a true sense of team spirit and togetherness is at the heart rowing, making it an exception to many other sports. Whether it’s expressed through the classic end of row debrief or else pennying your friends on a crew date, being a rower means that you are not just part of your team but part of the whole boat club, and you have the ‘stash’ to prove it.

Of course it is a commitment, but so is everything that is worthwhile and everyone knows that it’s healthy to balance your work with other activities. There is nothing like a brisk morning row to act as a surprisingly effective hangover cure and to clear the mind of any stresses and worries you may have.

All sports and challenges in life are made easier when you have a goal to focus your efforts on. In Hilary, the hope for termly glory is decided at Torpids: the chaotic, bumps-style race. To give up now before you’ve had the chance to compete would be a huge shame. Indeed, the last thing you would want is to get to the final day of Torpids and be the one watching from the riverbank, wishing that you were in the boat. It is said that in life you regret that which you didn’t do, far more than those things that you did. After all, the chance to row for your college at Oxford University will most likely be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

So yes ungodly early starts are a bit grim, you do wake up questioning all of your life decisions, and the concept of an erg can seem like something akin to torture. But you never do it alone, and as you catch that other boat in Torpids or even just as you watch the sun rise over the river, you realise that it is moments like these that make it all worthwhile.

‘League of Gentlemen’ review – meaningful, powerful and incredibly funny

0

After an extended hiatus, The League of Gentlemen returned to our screens on 18 December. Fifteen years on, everything has changed in Royston Vasey. Pressures on world fuel supplies have led to the dawn of fracking, the LGBTQ+ community have gained a far more prominent role in mainstream discourse, and Brexit has descended upon the United Kingdom. Yet nothing has changed. Pops is just as menacing as ever, Les’ dream of finding musical stardom is just as ill-fated as it was, and the Denton family still adore slimy amphibians and terrorise their nephew, Benjamin.

In their comeback, Reece Shearsmith, Steve Pemberton, and Mark Gatiss have added a healthy dose of biting social commentary to their sketch show. They have created a set of three episodes which resonate deeply with the current political climate and prove that this swansong is not just a self-indulgent daydream basking in past successes, but actually has something meaningful, powerful and incredibly funny to relate to their audience.

The star of the show is undoubtedly Edward, whose love for his own insular community has been moulded ingeniously to parody the parochial, patriarchal patriot who stands up for all things ‘local’. Although Brexit jokes might have saturated Britain’s comedy scene long before this December, his assertion that Royston Vasey needs to ‘take back control’ is wonderfully inexplicable in the mouth of a shop-owning mass murderer, whose ability to dodge death is almost as remarkable as his wife’s coming to terms with the modern absurdities that are accidental live-streaming, texting on the toilet, and Google Maps.

Equally as wonderful are the awkward exchanges which take place in Babs’ Cabs, after the eponymous taxi-driving owner has had a sex change. The offence ‘xe’ takes to Benjamin using female pronouns degenerates into absurdity when Babs is unable to decide which pronoun she herself prefers, though Babs does insist that ACRONYM (Actively Considering Reassignment OR Not Yet Made Your Mind up) describes the community much better than LGBT.

Yet in amongst these pointed nods towards contemporary society, The League of Gentlemen’s return succeeds in doing what it has always done well all over again. Heartbreak and horribly gruesome twists characterise all three episodes. Especially shocking is the reveal that Pauline has now been institutionalised, which has the viewer doing a double-take as they realise that the scene is not merely just another day at the Job Centre, but a desperate attempt to reawaken Pauline’s memory, degenerating as a result of some-unnamed psychiatric condition.

Things get even more painstakingly brutal in the second and third episodes, with several major character deaths which made this author gasp aloud. We are even treated to an attempted resurrection, as through a scene reminiscent of Voldemort’s reawakening in Harry Potter, Harvey Denton’s soul is transported into the body of his maligned nephew.

In between these moments of heightened drama, the quality of the writing stands out as once again superb. The inter-weaving of distinct plot lines marked out the first two seasons in particular, and this narrative tool was again employed to great effect this time around. The mysterious photo-booth served as the over-arching unifier and showed us who was really pulling the strings behind the scenes.

The League of Gentlemen’s return has showed that this deeply disturbing and darkly comical style is a crowd pleaser today as much as it was 15 years ago: if you need convincing try not to be absorbed by the macabre of the bingo scene, in which one wizened pensioner recounts a Thai love-affair. But despite their successes, the comedy trio announced subtly, and rightly, that this would be our last glimpse of Royston Vasey. Benjamin noted to his aunt how he could visit but never stay; just like Papa Lazarou’s circus, Pemberton and co. need to roll out of town once the lights are out, the story has been told, and enough victims have been claimed.

Are we set for a robot takeover?

0

Back in July 2017, an article was published on The Independent regarding two artificial intelligences developed by Facebook that had started talking to each other in a language that only they could understand. Terrified readers suggested this was the beginning of the end, arguing that AIs could now start plotting to destroy mankind and rule the earth. In reality, the Facebook bots certainly did not pose such a threat. But the possibility of robots overtaking humans in intelligence seems quite real today.

In the Facebook case, the communication between the programs was entirely intended and probably not dangerous at all. Their creators had designed them to complete a negotiation task that involved the trading of balls and hats. The catch was that the programmers gave the AIs the freedom to choose how they communicate with one another – meaning they did not have to use comprehensible English. During the task, they developed their own ‘shorthand’ and their first few lines went as follows:

“Bob: i can i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me”

To me, this doesn’t look too unusual at first glance. It actually reminds me of how all of my fellow classmates tried to communicate in English when we were first learning the language back in China. We only knew a few words in English, but still wanted to be able to converse – so our communications were much like Alice and Bob’s attempts.

In the case of the AIs, however, those few words were the only few they ‘thought’ they needed. So those were the only words they used in the negotiations. Without the constraints of grammar, manners and social norms, Bob became the most selfish program ever and Alice became very desperate.

Anyway, this is what I think happened, and after a surge of fear mongering clickbait articles Facebook came out to clarify that indeed, the programs were acting entirely as they had been told and the communication was all part of their task. But what if the clickbait articles had been right? Is it possible that humans wouldn’t be able compete with an intelligence we had created?

With the recent rapid development of artificial intelligence, many people believe that a ‘Technological Singularity’ is to occur sooner rather than later. This is the name for the point where robots reach human intelligence, and while estimates for its time vary wildly, most believe it is set to happen within the next century – for example, Google’s chief of engineering Ray Kurzweil puts it at around 2045. While the idea of ‘reaching human intelligence’ is very ill-defined, the important part is probably encompassed by adaptability – programs being able to draw on past knowledge and outside sources, and use this to solve any task, or at least as many as humans can, without being set to do a specific one. At this point the only cognitive difference between robots and humans will be speed – and it is likely that the robots will be much, much faster.

So, if a time like this comes, will computers dutifully solve every problem we have ever had, or will they have also developed the level of free thought required to see us as lesser beings – perhaps even trying to kill us? And what do we do if the worst case happens?

This may seem like fiction, but I think it’s possible that by the time AI becomes this advanced, we will also have the technology required to upload a human’s mind (or consciousness) onto a computer. After all, if the computers of the future are to support a programme that has the same processing capacity as a human brain, who is to say that that same computer cannot support an exact digital copy of one’s consciousness?

For some people who are afraid of the Singularity, this possibility presents a solution. Once a person has uploaded themselves onto a computer, or enhanced their natural brain and body with computers, they do not have the same physical limitations as an ordinary person. They may well be able to compete with the speed and capability of post-singularity AIs.

However, this potential solution comes with more problems.  Much like how Alice and Bob picked only the necessary words and phrases to communicate, when it comes to uploading the consciousness of a human being, for example, Sam’s, we may have to make a choice as to which parts of Sam’s consciousness to upload. The answers to this are not entirely obvious. For instance, it seems unnecessary to upload Sam’s desire for pizzas to a machine that cannot eat, but on the other hand, it is surely a part of his personality. We may even want to avoid uploading some parts just to save storage space. Once this sort of decision is made, I’m not sure you could say that it really is Sam who exists on the computer, rather than someone else.

These questions are all fascinating – but we probably have until at least 2045 before we have to answer them. The future looks like it’s going to at least be an exciting ride. Let’s just hope we humans are ready for whatever that may mean.

Oxford hosts leadership programme to tackle Brexit effects

0

Oxford University this week hosts the first classes for a new European network of future leaders tasked with solving the continent’s social problems. The initiative, formed in response to Brexit, aims to bring diverse young minds together to address issues such as growing nationalism and youth unemployment.

Oxford is one of thirteen elite European institutions taking part in the programme run by the Europaeum, an organisation which aims to strengthen pan-European ties across university networks.

It has awarded thirty postgraduate researchers with a scholarship of around €10,000, which will cover their travel, tuition, and accommodation for the various seminars.

The first cohort – which includes four graduates from Oxford – arrived at Balliol College yesterday for the first week-long module. Seven more events will be held over the next two years in cities across Europe, including Leiden, Geneva and Prague.

Dr Andrew Graham, former Master of Balliol, who conceived the idea for the programme, said that though it was triggered by Britain voting to leave the European Union, the continent currently faces a wide set of social troubles which go far beyond Brexit.

“Brexit was absolutely part of it but universities in Helsinki and Madrid and Prague and elsewhere face issues that are just as intractable. There’s the rise of the far right in Germany, the disputes in Catalonia, the tension around migration, and high rates of youth unemployment in places like Greece and Portugal,” Graham said.

“These are European problems, not just EU or eurozone problems alone. But it was Brexit that made me think it was time for something fresh.”

Graham believes programmes like these could help young academics have a practical impact on the rest of society, something which he thinks has been lacking recently.

“The Brexit result clearly had a lot to do with a fundamental absence of leadership. But it was also about opposition to evidence, and an information barrier among large parts of the public,” he said.

“As academics we have to think: what happened to the values of the Enlightenment and the insights from the scientific revolution? What the hell did we do wrong?”

Stressing the need for practical solutions, Graham added: “The results of their efforts have got to have value. I don’t necessarily mean monetary value, but value for society. They can be idealistic, but they also have to be pinned into reality – ideally something that could be implemented in one form or another.

“What we want are outcomes that will excite people and be useful, whether to an MP or the European parliament or an NGO or business. It could be all sorts of things, but it has to interest someone and give them a solution that they can bring about.”

The Europaeum was created in 1992 by Lord Weidenfeld, Sir Ronald Grierson, and Lord Roy Jenkins, the chancellor of Oxford at the time. It aims to strengthen pan-European ties across university networks by bringing together talented young people who could shape the future of the continent.

It is made up of twelve universities, of which St Andrews is the only other UK university.

Lord Patten, chancellor of Oxford, was appointed Europaeum’s new Chair of Trustees in October. Speaking at Balliol to announce the new programme in September, he said: “Does anyone doubt that Europe faces huge difficulties? Does anyone doubt that the future of Europe must lie with the young? Does anyone doubt that the UK will be a better and more stimulating place if it continues to be fully contributing to, and engaging with, the intellectual mainstream of Europe rather than retreating into English Nationalism?

“My predecessor as chancellor, Roy Jenkins, was proud to have initiated the Europaeum and I am equally proud to be part of these new initiatives.”

The programme comes after a series of initiatives by the University to maintain its European links post-Brexit. Louise Richardson, vice-chancellor of Oxford, announced last month a new partnership with four Berlin universities which will facilitate increased collaboration.

The Premier League – how sustainable is the current format?

0

On 25th March 2014, Pep Guardiola’s Bayern Munich became mathematically unassailable in Germany, smashing the Bundesliga record with seven games still to play. This time, it is 17th March 2018 that will be – according to the Times’ statistician Bill Edgar – the day of destiny for Guardiola’s lithe blue figurines: Brighton at the Etihad the proposed final obstacle to becoming the earliest English top-flight victors since 1891.

It is perhaps premature to get carried away with thoughts of how early Pep Guardiola could conquer the league, especially with trips to Anfield, the Emirates, and Wembley to come, but as Manchester City continue to extend their own record winning streak, a more pressing concern is the threat to the widely-held notion of the Premier League as the most competitive in world football. This is not to detract from the achievements of Guardiola or his Manchester City side, curated with purpose and vision, perfectly executed – be it a deft Kevin De Bruyne through-ball or a searching cross-field high ball from Ederson – and perfectly managed. In fact, it is the opposite.

It feels incongruous to be having this discussion just two seasons after witnessing the ultimate sporting underdog tale, but the Premier League is constantly evolving. City are the beautiful veneer of a cash-soaked, global-reaching incarnation of the Premier League. When Leicester triumphed, they created a vacuum, and as Roberto Saviano lays bare in Zero Zero Zero, ‘evolutionary transformation is fuelled by vacuums’. In short, Leicester sparked a renewed assault from each of the now-entrenched ‘big six’.

Antonio Conte’s Chelsea were the harbinger. With a revolutionary tactical mutation – perhaps merely an adaptation to the personnel at his disposal – Chelsea were able to conquer the division. However, it is Manchester City who have seized the opportunity with most meaning, a perfect storm of financial clout, gilded talent, and visionary coaching. Chelsea were controlling and relentless, but City are an indefatigable wrecking ball, representing how an eminent force can function when everything slots together perfectly. Manchester City have the league wrapped up in December; yet more pointed is the gulf in class between the top six and the rest that is continuing to enlarge.

Newcastle captain Jamaal Lascelles described their fixture against Manchester City as a nothing-to-lose game, effectively a free shot at the champions-elect sandwiched between fixtures against West Ham and Brighton. That’s exactly what Jonjo Shelvey put into practice, taking a free shot from the halfway line straight from kick-off. Newcastle were as close as any team this season to frustrating City, only the third to concede just a solitary goal, but they did so passively. Shelvey’s effort was one of only two shots on target for the Magpies.

The concern is that the deployment of this game plan is proliferating, and the results are telling. This season the rest of the league average 0.44 points per game versus the big six, while the big six average 2.38 versus the rest. Burnley top ‘the rest’ with a healthy 0.86 p.p.g., achieved with roughly a third of possession. For their part, Burnley and Sean Dyche are enacting the philosophy to a tee; the fact they represent the only team not cut adrift is an indictment of the League’s dynamic.

On 23rd December, Everton hosted Chelsea and offered no attempt to partake in possession, failing to register a single shot on target. Indeed, Everton’s season is a distillation of the fine balance between ambition and consolidation, and of a team stuck with nowhere to go. Everton have long since loomed, but with £150 million spent in the summer to no avail, the appointment of Sam Allardyce is imbued with resignation. Since his arrival at the club, Everton have recorded 40 shots versus 94 conceded and yet quietly accrued 12 points from a possible 18. They will probably finish 7th. Southampton will likely sack Mauricio Pellegrino, end up in 8th, and try again next year.

It is therefore a misconception, perpetuated globally, that every Premier League encounter will be a frenzy of lethal attacking like Arsenal 3-3 Liverpool. When the new domestic broadcast package is auctioned in February, 200 games out of a possible 380 will be available to be screened. It is the international market, however, that is beginning to wield greater power – the latest Chinese broadcast deal represented a 1000% increase – and that has forced the Premier League to play mediator between the best and the rest, holding clandestine meetings over proposals for performance-based distribution. With the competition eroding in greater context as its appeal is outsourced, the big six re-establishing themselves as eminent forces in Europe, and digital giants Amazon, Netflix and Facebook swarming, just how sustainable is the future of the Premier League?

Doctor Who: Twice Upon a Time review – ‘the show regenerates, and not a moment too soon’

1

In October 1966, the BBC broadcast The Tenth Planet, the last serial featuring the first incarnation of the Doctor. “It’s far from being all over,” the Doctor proclaims near the end, and, not long afterward, viewers were confronted with the unexpected sight of the Doctor regenerating for the very first time. This is the moment which Steven Moffat decides to revisit in Twice Upon a Time, Peter Capaldi’s swansong. The dying Twelfth Doctor, who is refusing to regenerate, bumps into his own past self, who is similarly reluctant to change. It’s an ambitious premise, and one which isn’t realised quite successfully.

It’s worth noting that Moffat hadn’t always wanted to write this episode – the original plan was that the Twelfth Doctor would regenerate after the explosive heroics of the Series 10 finale. The journey towards his regeneration, consequently, feels rather dragged out, and I can’t help but feel as though he goes out on more of a whimper than a bang.

The plot revolves around the two Doctors investigating Testimony, a mysterious organisation who have been interfering with the past. However, it turns out that they are merely seeking to preserve the memories of the dead; there isn’t actually an evil plan to be foiled. While all feels a bit insubstantial, I admit that this wasn’t much of a problem for me, as I found most of it to be a fairly entertaining runabout. What really captured my interest was the interaction between the Twelfth Doctor and his past self, and, unfortunately, this is the point where the episode really falls down.

William Hartnell, who played the First Doctor, passed away in 1975, and his performance is here recreated by David Bradley. Bradley offers a strong performance, convincingly capturing Hartnell’s mannerisms. However, he’s let down by the writing: Steven Moffat seems to have forgotten that he’s writing for a time-travelling alien as opposed to a human being from 1960s England. The First Doctor was certainly never as sexist or reactionary as he’s shown to be here, and the disappointing result is that Moffat’s vision of the original Doctor feels more like an unflattering caricature than a faithful homage. One consolation, though, is that Peter Capaldi is on fine form. His last moments are a poignant send-off to a character I’ve grown to love, and it was very moving to see old companions Bill and Nardole, and even a shoehorned-in Clara, brought back for a last goodbye.

Ultimately, this is an episode that makes an attempt – albeit not a perfect one – to proclaim that we all have to evolve and move on, while still remembering the past. It’s an admirable moral, and one which is perfectly captured by the explosive moment where the Twelfth Doctor whispers “Doctor, I let you go,” before finally regenerating. Despite its failings, Twice Upon a Time ends on a confident note, and I was instantly captivated by Jodie Whittaker’s two-word introduction as the Doctor. Doctor Who has shown, once again, that it’s far from being all over.

Oxford academics rewarded for services to Britain

2

Senior Oxford academics across a range of fields have been recognised in the 2018 New Year’s Honours list.

Professor Margaret MacMillan has been appointed Companion of Honour (CH) for services to higher education, history and international affairs.

The Honorary Fellow and former Warden of St. Anthony’s College joins only 65 others who currently hold the special distinction.

Two knighthoods have also been awarded. The first will go to Bernard Silverman, Emeritus Professor of Statistics and former Master of St. Peter’s College. Silverman recently served as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Home Office. The other goes to Professor Tim Besely CBE, currently at LSE, who was knighted for services to Economics and Public Policy.

Professor Ngaire Woods, founding Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government, is appointed CBE.

Woods said: “I am honoured by this award which reflects the remarkable dedication of the staff, faculty and students of the Blavatnik School of Government.

“The establishment of the School underscores what is possible when fantastic colleagues and supporters across Oxford and across the world come together to address a very serious challenge.”

Professor Jane Humphries, fellow of All Souls, has also been given a CBE for services to Social Science and Economic History.

Joining them are three recipients of an OBE. Professor Judy Sebba is recognised for services to Higher Education and Disadvantaged Young People.

Sebba, who serves as Director of the Rees Centre at the University’s Department of Education, said: “I am delighted to be receiving this honour.

“Our findings repeatedly show that young people in care need others to believe in them if they are to believe in themselves.”

Other recepients include Translational Medicine Professor Chas Bountra and Alan Giles of the Saïd Business School.

Three MBEs were also announced. One of the recepients, the Director of the University’s Migration Observatory, Madeleine Sumption, said: “I’m delighted that the work of the Migration Observatory has been recognised in this way.

“Migration has been one of the defining issues in the UK’s public debate in the past few years and the whole team has worked incredibly hard to make high-quality evidence accessible to the public, the media, policymakers and civil society.”

Dr Jake Dunning, a Visiting Research Fellow in the Epidemic Diseases Research Group, is recognised for services to Clinical Research for trials conducted during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. He said he was “truly humbled by this award.”

Twelve awards in total have been given. Recently-appointed Pro-Vice-Chancellor Dr David Prout, a former senior civil servant, has been appointed Companion of the Order of Bath.

1,123 people have been recognised overall in the New Year’s Honours. Seven university members were given honours in the 2017 list.