Monday 6th October 2025
Blog Page 868

Life Divided: Oxlove

Maxim Parr-Reid and James Lamming
-
0
Life Divided: Oxlove

Maxim Parr-Reid: For

Sandwiched between a cornucopia of confession (Oxfess) and a fissure of ferocity (Oxfeud), Oxlove comes as both a welcome break from the stupor of revision, and a wickedly effective means of procrastination. It is an antidote to the banality of Oxfeud and the neurotic nature of Oxfess, and the perfect excuse to liberally dust my Facebook news feed with the warm hue of ‘love reacts’.

There is not a library in the University where you won’t see undergrads ferociously scrolling, essay forgotten, in search of a personal post. All I can say is—long live the chirpse. I’ve never received one myself (nor am I fishing for one here, I hasten to add). Maybe you’ve been lucky on that front. Yet I have made use of the page. Obviously I don’t want to embarrass the subject of my submissions, but Oxlove allows us to pour forth a welter of words expressing the way we feel in the comfort of complete anonymity (most of the time).

What a joy it is to use anonymous epistles to be open about chirpses and crushes without the slightest chance of being unmasked. Oxlove allows us to pen dreamy missives to our love interests and explain how we really feel. In this sense, it is a truly liberating platform.

Who needs Tinder for time wasting? You could scroll through Oxlove forever and never cease to be bemused, bedazzled even, by the effervescent waves of emotion zooming through this university. No visit to the RadCam (something itself supposedly done in a vain attempt to elicit an Oxlove post—who’d have thought it?) would be complete without perusing the poetry of that page—and of course hunting for something written about you no doubt.

The vexed question of what women want has finally been answered, it seems. Keep your drunken advances in “el Brigo” or your attempts to pull in Park End—all that she wants is an Oxlove.

James Lamming: Against

To the terrible page,
With some dubious chat,
Your poetry’s bad,
And your rhyme scheme is clapped.

Oxlove’s your name
But you’re no Casanova-
Your time in the spotlight
Is soon to be over.

You no longer rhyme
And your quality’s worse,
Is it really poetry
If it’s just in blank verse?

I’m bitter, I know,
I didn’t find love,
Though I posted so often
In the form of above.

Anonymity was heaven,
I wrote odes to a few
of my favourite part-time flings,
And my girlfried never knew.

But please, Oxlove, please,
Let’s rekindle our flame,
The recent content
Has been exceedingly tame.

Please, Oxlove, please,
Take me back in your arms,
Display once again
Your amorous charms.

I’ll be good to you, Oxlove,
In my heart and the sack,
O please, dear Oxlove,
I just want you back,

Yours most sincerely,
one heart-broken hack

View from Northern Ireland: a caveat for the Conservatives

Daniel Xu
-
0
View from Northern Ireland: a caveat for the Conservatives

Before June 9, most in Britain probably hadn’t heard of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Yet with ten MPs, they’ve been the largest party in Northern Ireland for the past decade, and are set to play a crucial role in propping up a Conservative minority government.

Since then, you’ve no doubt learned that they are fervently anti-abortion and strongly oppose the rights of the LGBTQ community. You may even have seen the video of Reverend Ian Paisley (the party’s founder) heckle Pope John Paul II and denounce him as the “Antichrist.” It’s no secret that the party’s founder and many of their senior leadership are fundamentalist Calvinists.

The aim of this article is not to expose the DUP’s fanatical conservatism or how a Conservative-DUP deal could jeopardise the Northern Ireland peace process; these are concerns which have been addressed in writing by countless others. Rather I want to give my opinion, having lived in Northern Ireland and observed the DUP way of politics, of why the Conservatives should beware of their new political bedfellows.

The first thing to understand is that the DUP are popular, not because of their conservative views, but despite them. They have a large and dedicated following who will support them despite their contentious economic or social policies, so long as they present themselves as protectors of the Union with Great Britain and as a bastion against Sinn Fein.

For example, late last year it emerged that current DUP leader and former First Minister Arlene Foster had overseen a mismanaged renewable heat incentive scheme that will cost the public purse £400 million. Under this scheme one farmer was set to receive £1 million over 20 years for heating an empty shed. The scheme was allowed to continue for years despite concerns being raised by multiple whistle-blowers. Foster resisted all calls to resign or step aside temporarily, amidst allegations of corruption and cover-up — even from one of her own ministers. Such a political scandal would have felled the leader of any other British political party, but didn’t cause so much as a dent in the DUP’s popularity at the polls. In fact, the party received more votes than ever at the snap assembly election called after the botched heating scheme was exposed.

Given their unwavering base and the extraordinary power they now wield in Westminster, the DUP are now stronger and bolder than ever before. On the other hand, as a consequence of a disastrous general election result, the Conservatives are weak and exposed to attack from within.

Conservatives may take consolation in the fact that the two parties are “natural allies”, as described by one Conservative MP. Both parties are right of centre, pro-Brexit, and Unionist. Moreover, the DUP are intensely antipathetic to Jeremy Corbyn due to his perceived sympathies with the IRA. However, this does not mean that the DUP will yield easily, and do the Conservative’s bidding. To the contrary, a senior DUP source warned that they should not be “taken for granted”.

Moreover, closer examination reveals that the two parties are less politically aligned than many might think. Socially, the DUP are far more conservative. It was recently revealed that Arlene Foster had asked the Scottish government to curtail access of Northern Irish citizens to Scottish same-sex marriages. By contrast, Scotland’s Conservative leader is openly lesbian. Economically, the DUP are less conservative — they opposed rises to tuition fees, the bedroom tax, and cuts to the winter fuel allowance. On Brexit, the DUP are keen for a softer Brexit to protect trade and travel with the Republic of Ireland.

The Conservatives should also not mistake the DUP’s unionism as a desire to act in the best interests of the UK as a whole. For the DUP, unionism means to fight for the Union flag to fly on Belfast City Hall every day of the year (instead of just on designated days, as is the practice in most British councils). It means ignoring the importance of the Irish language by opposing an Irish Language Act (even though both Scotland and Wales have a Gaelic and Welsh Language Act). Furthermore, the DUP may also be described as Ulster Nationalists — they desire what’s best for Northern Ireland within the UK, and it is certain that they will press for increased funding. Given that Northern Ireland already receives 24 per cent more public spending per person than England, this would undoubtedly be an unpalatable request for the Conservatives.

As a final caveat, those of us in Northern Ireland have lived without a devolved government since the Northern Ireland Executive collapsed in January, triggered in part by Arlene Foster’s refusal to resign after the heating scheme scandal. Talks between the DUP and Sinn Fein (their power-sharing partners) to restore a functioning government have resulted in nothing but mudslinging and missed deadlines.

Perhaps it’s not too difficult to understand why after almost two weeks of talks, and despite early Conservative optimism that a deal would be concluded before the Queen’s Speech, one has yet to materialise. In contrast, it took only five days for the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition to be agreed. It would appear that the Conservatives are beginning to realise that Arlene Foster, too, is a “bloody difficult woman”, much more so than Theresa May.

Oxford exact revenge at Lord’s

Tom Goodwin
-
0
Oxford exact revenge at Lord’s

Oxford secured a nine run victory over Cambridge at Lord’s, a satisfying result after last week’s ten run defeat in the 20-over format.

Despite a green wicket and light cloud coverage, Oxford chose to bat first upon winning the toss. This decision was validated as the openers began well, withstanding some probing bowling, tallying a patient 35 without loss from the first eight overs.

Moses was the pick of the bowlers early, conceding just 18 runs off his first five overs. Despite a few nervous flashes past second slip, Oxford looked comfortable before Escott chopped onto his own stumps for 21.

Naylor and Hughes consolidated nicely, battling a workman-like Poulson, who bowled a 9 over spell of 0/32.  The pair built an impressive 52 run partnership before the captain Hughes was unluckily run out for 32. A strong straight drive from Naylor was finger-tipped by Poulson before hitting the stumps at the non-striker’s end, where Hughes was out of his ground.

Gnodde arrived at the crease with the intent of upping the run rate, and he did just that on his way to an impressive 76 off 60. After being dropped on the boundary on 51, Gnodde looked like leading Oxford towards a damaging total before an innings defining spell from Moses.

Taking four wickets in three overs, Moses sparked a middle order batting collapse that saw Oxford lose four wickets for just 22. However, the Oxford tail wagged, with a quick-fire 16 run cameo from Marsden seeing Oxford end on 264/8.

Cambridge responded confidently but Marsden’s opening spell of 2/18 off six left the game evenly poised at 52/2 after 12. A frustrating day for Cambridge beckoned as the top order all got starts but failed to carry on.

As Cambridge fell to 111/4, the momentum was well and truly with Oxford, but the introduction of the star with the ball, Tim Moses, changed everything. His 66 run partnership with Dalgleish put Cambridge right back in the game, with Moses’ rapid 45 off 35 threatening to take the game away.

However, the reintroduction of Marsden into the attack brought about a much needed wicket, and the departure of Moses immediately slowed the run rate. Tensions were high at the 40 over mark, as Cambridge required a further 64 runs from the final 60 balls, with five wickets in hand.

A fine bowling performance from Swanson removed Dalgleish for 68 in the 41st over, and from there, Oxford had the upper hand. However, with two overs remaining Cambridge were still very much in the game, needing 21 runs with three wickets to spare. But the wickets kept falling.

Fittingly, Marsden bowled the final over, and picked up the final wicket of the match, bowling opposition skipper Patrick Tice around his legs, to finish with impressive match high figures of 4/33.

Tensions were high and the crowd was vocal in the final few overs, but a strong all round bowling performance from Oxford, particularly from the spin brigade secured a deserving win. Gnodde (76) and Naylor (52) were standouts with the bat while Marsden (4/33 and Swanson (4/58) were the key wicket tackers for Oxford. Tim Moses (4/56 and 45 off 35) was mightily impressive, but it was not enough to secure his side the victory.

The teams appear evenly matched for what will be an exciting four-day game in Cambridge next month.

Students reject move to end the wearing of scholars’ gowns

Henry Straughan
-
0
Students reject move to end the wearing of scholars’ gowns

Students have overwhelming voted against a motion on whether OUSU should oppose the wearing of scholars’ gowns in examinations.

In a consultation poll, 2126 students voted against the motion that OUSU should oppose the wearing of differential gowns in examinations, with 1214 in favour, and 33 abstentions. The poll was open for two days and received a total turnout of 3373—around 14 per cent of the student body.

The results of the poll, which is non-binding, will be discussed and voted on in OUSU’s 1st week Michaelmas Council.

The motion was proposed by Wadham students, Matilda Agace and Isobel Cockbur. Writing in Cherwell, Agace, Cockbur and Taisie Tsikas claimed that “the hierarchical gown structure is fundamentally in conflict with ideals of community and equality that the University espouses”. “Many students are made to feel uncomfortable and nervous by the presence of a visual reminder of what they might perceive as their academic inferiority,” they wrote.

It was further suggested that scholars’ gowns, which cost £45, do not accurately represent academic achievement. An argument in favour of the motion on OUSU’s website argued: “prelims results are more of a reflection of a student’s educational background than their grade in Finals”.

However, there has been strong opposition to the banning of scholars gowns. Writing in Cherwell, Thomas Munro said that it would be “perverse to deny those who have achieved academically the rewards of their success”.

Munro further argued: “to remove the right to wear [scholars’ gowns] from those who have already achieved scholarships reeks of envy, rather than any real desire for reform”.

It remains unclear if the poll will prove decisive on this contentious issue. Because the consultation was solely advisory, OUSU council could still technically vote to adopt the policy of opposing differential gowns in examinations in October.

Banning abortion by stealth is plain and simple misogyny

Salil Patel
-
0
Banning abortion by stealth is plain and simple misogyny

In the time it takes the moon to pirouette around our marble globe of a world, approximately 830 woman die during childbirth. That’s 830 families who lose all maternal comfort. In 2017, this occurs daily.

35.8 woman die every 100,000 live births in Texas alone. This figure has doubled since the year 2000 and is now the highest in the developed world. By way of comparison, firearms kill 10.3 people per 100,000 in the US. Despite this discrepancy in mortality, the media and political attention gun control receives is far greater than that for reproductive health—both are preventable.

A tragic escalation in maternal mortality is usually explained by broad societal paradigm shifts, such as recessions or war. However, in Texas, the prevailing cause is attributed to a
single piece of legislation, changing the rubric of access to healthcare for women. A 2011 act to  cut spending was directly targeted at reducing and ultimately defunding Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organisation (NGO) responsible for providing reproductive healthcare to over four  million women a year.

Such an egregious decision was made by the 82nd Texas state legislature, comprising of six
female state senators from a total of 31. This senate, along with millions of constituents, were unaware that women’s health is multifaceted and not solely defined as access to abortion.

Nevertheless, in blaze of pro-life rhetoric, the family planning budget was cut from $111 million to $37.9 million. While on the topic of abortion, Marie Stopes International, a NGO providing reproductive health to over 20 million women worldwide, predicts 2.1 million unsafe abortions in the US, as a result of Trump’s anti-abortive policy, resulting in 21,700 maternal deaths.

However, maternal mortality cannot be explained by one factor alone. Issues such as mortality  differences amongst minorities need to be addressed (the numbers of deaths of Caucasian woman compared to those from African- American minorities are alarming).

As Nick Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn said in Half the Sky: “In the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality around the world.”

A correlation between the closure of abortion clinics, the defunding of reproductive health and an increasing mortality is largely observational—subsequent causality is hard to prove.
However, the disparity between regions with and without access to adequate care is hard to ignore. In California—where Planned Parenthood is woven into mainstream politics and reproductive health services are easier to access than most other states – 15.1 woman die per 100,000, well below the US average of 23.8. Internationally, the comparison is far more disturbing. South Sudan has a maternal mortality rate of 789 per 100,000. A woman living in a developing country is one thousand times more likely to die, as a result of pregnancy, than a woman living in the west. Such regions, not coincidentally, are known to have poorer access to reproductive health, family planning services, and midwives.

Barriers in many developing countries—often violent incarnations of religious and cultural
norms—restrict access to contraception and dictate social emancipation.

Unchaining woman from a distressingly common cycle of compulsory reproduction, morality aside, is immensely beneficial to both the mother and child’s health. Empowering woman, medically, fiscally, and socially is the most effective cure for poverty in the developing world.

We live in an era where health and politics are inseparably entwined. The very act of providing healthcare is political. It is commonplace for many to shy away from public displays of allegiance or heated discourse in the name of impartiality. Instead physicians, public health experts, journalists, and politicians should publicise this huge gender healthcare disparity.

Our time is defined by technological prowess, scientific discovery, and inventive ingenuity. We eradicate diseases, encode artificial intelligence, and harness the power of a dying
star. Yet, every year, 300,000 woman die from preventable complications of childbirth. They are dependent on global action. It will take humility and diligent compromise. But the alternative is deplorable. If we don’t act, mothers will continue to perish needlessly.

Edinburgh Fringe: In the Pink preview

Thomas Athey
-
0
Edinburgh Fringe: In the Pink preview

Given the numerous similarities between Hogwarts and Oxford, it was only a matter of time before an Oxford society fully embraced the similarities. And this is exactly what all female acapella group In the Pink, made up of students from both Oxford and Oxford Brookes universities, has done. Rehearsing in preparation for their twelfth successive appearance at the Edinburgh Fringe, and hot on the heels of a resounding success in making it to the semi-finals of this year’s Voice Festival UK, In the Pink are hoping that their next show will be their best yet.

The premise of the show is strong. Seeking to ‘find the music in everyday life’, the show attempts to recast every day student situations with a musical and magical twist. And they mean all student situations, promising to recast student life ‘from the library to the nightclub’. The talent on show is nothing short of remarkable too. Acapella is difficult to pull of successfully, but there are no missteps here and audiences will be left impressed with the variety and range of compositions.

Beyond the musical talent however, the group also have a strong commitment to advancing female empowerment. This has always been evident in the group’s confident performances, but this year has been taken a step forward by partnering with Oxford Against Cutting. This is a local charity that aims to prevent female genital mutilation in and around the city, and not only has In the Pink agreed to continue fundraising and raising awareness while at the fringe, they have also committed to donating half their profits to the charity. As such they are currently running a crowdfunding campaign to cover travel costs, in order to maximise profits.

In the Pink will be at the Edinburgh Fringe between between 14 and 19 August.

Oxford awarded Gold in controversial first TEF rankings

Cherwell News
-
0
Oxford awarded Gold in controversial first TEF rankings

Oxford University has been awarded the highest medal, Gold, in the government’s new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).

The ranking enables the University to increase tuition fees further in line with inflation for students matriculating in 2018.

The release of the TEF ranking follows the NUS-coordinated OUSU boycott of the National Student Survey (NSS). The boycott intended to undermine the NSS, which has long been used to rank universities, and in turn the new TEF.

The NSS was intended to be used as a key component of the TEF, which assesses the standard of university teaching based on graduate destinations, drop-out rates, and NSS scores.

Universities were awarded one of three medals by the TEF: Gold, Silver, or Bronze. The NUS believes these medals will be used to “create a false market” and allow more highly ranked universities to changed increased tuition fees.

Under current plans, universities awarded Bronze will be able to increase fees by up to 50 per cent of inflation, whilst universities awarded Silver or Gold will be able to increase fees by the full amount of inflation.

With the grant of a Gold award, the University is to press ahead with its previously announced plans to increase fees in line with inflation for students matriculating in 2016 and 2017, but not for those who began their studies earlier.

The results have proven surprising, with several members of the ‘elite’ Russell Group given the low Bronze award. Under current plans, from 2019 onwards, Bronze-tier universities such as the London School of Economics or Southampton University will not be allowed to increase fees in line with inflation as much as those given a higher ranking.

Jo Johnson, Universities minister, said: “The Teaching Excellence Framework is refocusing the sector’s attention on teaching—putting in place incentives that will raise standards across the sector and giving teaching the same status as research.

“Students, parents, employers and taxpayers all have a shared interest in ensuring that higher education equips the next generation of graduates for success.”

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “Teaching at Oxford has been long and widely recognised as amongst the best in the world. Our collegiate model of intensive, small-group tutorials gives students access to academics working at the top of their fields and encourages the development of independent, critical and analytical thought.

“We are pleased that Oxford’s well-established reputation for teaching excellence has been recognised in the new TEF.

“The University will also continue to provide one of the UK’s most generous support packages for students in financial need. More than 40% of the University’s additional fee income will be spent on bursaries, scholarships and outreach work, helping ensure that our world-class education remains available to all, regardless of their financial circumstances.”

In a statement, an OUSU representative said: “OUSU continues to oppose and condemn the linking of fee increases to the assessment of teaching quality, as well as the introduction of differentiated fees and the marketisation of Higher Education in the UK. We remain concerned about the likely impact on the student body at Oxford of rising fees, and especially on the access implications for marginalised or disadvantaged students.

“The TEF uses flawed metrics, as we’ve set out before, and on this basis we do not believe that it is a reliable indicator of teaching excellence. Academic quality and quality assurance are vital to ensure that students receive the best possible education and to hold Higher Education providers to account, but TEF fails to measure this effectively.”

Other universities achieving the highest Gold award are Cambridge University, Imperial College London, and Birmingham University.

Opposition to scholars’ gowns detracts from a meaningful discussion about inequality

Thomas Munro
-
1
Opposition to scholars’ gowns detracts from a meaningful discussion about inequality

It is perverse to deny those who have achieved academically the rewards of their success. Those who oppose scholars’ gowns use the rhetoric of equality and privilege, but in doing so disguise the real problems concerning examination inequality at Oxford by targeting an irrelevancy.

Broadly speaking, the argument against scholars’ gowns is three fold: firstly, there is the suggestion that the process by which they are awarded is unduly affected by privilege; secondly, that they lead to an unequal academic community, which adversely affects results; thirdly, that differentiated gowns intimidate and upset those who do not wear them during exams. Behind all of this, however, is a desire for pointless and unnecessary change for change’s sake, which does not succeed in addressing any of the real problems which exist within Oxford’s exam system.

It is undeniable that when people first arrive in Oxford their educational backgrounds vary wildly and there is a great deal of inequality. Fast-forward to mods or prelims, and it is difficult to make the same case. With the exception of some slight disparities between Colleges (which are generally removed by centralised teaching and inter-collegiate collaboration), the intense education received during the first year of Oxford levels the playing-field in such a way that when it comes to the first set of exams, it is academic ability that decides whether or not you earn an upgrade in your gown.

Gender disparities are undeniably a major problem, but this issue lies in the way students are examined, and it should be a resolution of these disparities and not simply their outward symptoms which OUSU should work on combatting. It will not solve the problems of an often archaic and hence biased exam system to remove the outward symbols of success which attest to this bias—in fact, it will only disguise the problem further.

So does a differentiated gown system belie an unequal academic environment? It is not the University’s responsibility to ensure equality of outcome, but its purpose is surely to provide equality of opportunity. Oxford does not and should not aim to make sure everyone come out at the same level, but instead should aim to erode the educational inequality of those entering the university in their first year and ensure that those who work hard and achieve academically are given the opportunities to succeed. To say this is not to deny that there are structural problems which must be tackled to ensure that privilege and bias on the parts of examiners have an undue effect, but instead reaffirm the idea that the University should be a meritocratic system. Scholars’ gowns are a symbol of this meritocracy, which despite some failings, nevertheless succeeds to a great extent in rewarding achievement.

It is surprising that an argument levelled against scholars’ gowns is that the sight of them upset people in exams, and causes those who did not own them to perform worse. Surprising, since the gowns are the part of the scholarship least likely to result in later performance disparities. The financial rewards for performance in one’s first set of exams vary wildly between colleges, but overall amount to a sizeable sum of money, and in some colleges lead to priorities in accommodation, and extensive travel and academic grants. This begs the question: why hasn’t OUSU had a consultation about such ‘rewards’, if equality is truly its aim? It would be ludicrous to remove every reward for strong academic performance, but it seems that this consultation only targets the most visible yet least offensive aspect of the scholarship system. Again, a crucial problem in the Oxford exam system is present, but it is only the most irrelevant symptoms which are being targeted.

It should be remembered that you can earn a scholars’ gown at a number of points, not just your first set of exams, as they are also awarded for subsequent examinations, specific reasons such as organ scholarships, and academic performance outside of exams. The result is that your academic performance can be recognised at any point with a mark of distinction for hard work, and to remove the right to wear these from those who have already achieved scholarships reeks of envy, rather than any real desire for reform.

OUSU launches student consultation on scholars’ gowns

Mia Millman
-
0
OUSU launches student consultation on scholars’ gowns

Voting on an OUSU All Student Consultation on the student union’s policy on scholars’ gowns in examinations opens today at 12:30pm, after a narrow vote by OUSU Council in 7th week. Polling will remain open for two days and will be solely advisory.

OUSU Council narrowly voted to go to an All Student Consultation on whether OUSU should oppose the wearing of differential gowns in examinations during the 7th week Council meeting, in response to a motion put forward by Wadham students, Matilda Agace and Isobel Cockburn, to end the wearing of scholar’s gowns in exams.

A motion was already passed in Trinity term 2016 to ban the use of scholars’ gown in viva voce oral examinations, in order to reduce bias if examiners notice the gown.

The results of the consultation, along with the original motion, will be discussed and voted on in 1st Week Michaelmas Council. The poll is only a consultation, and the results are not binding.

The motion cites several reasons for ending the wearing of differential gowns, including that those without scholar’s gowns can feel “stressed, uncomfortable and inferior to their peers”. The motion also notes that “Oxford is the only university in the UK to have differentiated gowns in exams”.

If the motion passes in Michaelmas, OUSU sabbatical officers will be mandated to lobby the University to change the current system. It would also become OUSU policy to oppose the wearing of differential gowns in examinations.

Regarding the motion, Cockburn told Cherwell: “Anecdotally, we found that a lot of people felt much less confident and more anxious going into exams seeing big groups of people wearing scholars’ gowns, particularly women in STEM subjects.”

As a response to those who consider it ‘radical proposal’, Cockburn also told Cherwell: “subfusc is still worn and, as was argued at the 2014 referendum, it can act as an equaliser. Separate gowns act in opposition to this, creating a visual demarcation on often relatively arbitrary results.

“This is not an attempt to discourage people from celebrating their academic achievements; when you are awarded a scholarship, you are given both prizes and the title of a more academically able student.

“Of course scholars should be able to celebrate their academic achievements—but not at the expense of others.”

One student, Selma Stearns, told Cherwell: “I personally felt uncomfortable wearing my scholars’ gown because it felt showy and unnecessary. Everyone going to the exam has worked hard, and separating us based on results from another set of exams in another year seems arbitrary and elitist.”

Other arguments listed on the OUSU website in favour of the motion include the impact of the extra confidence given to scholars, and that “prelims results are more of a reflection of a student’s educational background than their grade in Finals”.

It has proven to be a divisive issue amongst students. One student, Tom Ash, told Cherwell: “I think by focusing on the gowns you’re scapegoating something which is not the most pressing issue in the system of inequality in Oxford, and getting rid of an important incentive for working in first year.”

Arguments have also been made regarding the undiscussed impact on choral and organ scholars. One organ scholar, Julia Alsop, told Cherwell: “You join the University as a scholar and student and they are intertwined—as such it diminishes us if we are not allowed to equally take our exams in the same way we experience our whole university life: as both scholars and students.”

Another student against the motion, Anna Lukina, said in a recent blog post: “Oxford [is] a place built on academic excellence—shunning rewarding it here seems absurd, especially since most current students have been accepted to this university by virtue of performing better than their peers.”

Regarding the inequality arguments put forward in favour of the motion, Lukina wrote: “The cost of gowns and disparities between different colleges in terms of scholarships/exhibitions are easier to address and will arguably make more positive impact.”

Arguments noted on the OUSU website against the motion include the impact of incentives to work hard, the long-lasting nature of the tradition, and the importance of rewarding academic excellence.

Students will have the opportunity to vote in the non-binding poll until 12.30pm this Friday.

The science books that every non-scientist should read

Rosalie Wells
-
0
The science books that every non-scientist should read

Let me start by being completely honest—I am not a scientist. I am an English student who struggled with GCSE science, nearly setting myself on fire with a Bunsen burner on multiple occasions. Despite this, I love popular scientific writing, so here are my top science books for other scientifically challenged readers out there.

This short selection leans towards medical as much as it does to scientific writing. You will have to blame my sister—who is now a medicine student—for that. Her Junior Doctor books first drew my attention to the scientific world.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot: This is one of those rare books that you read and are instantaneously compelled to tell the world about. To give the briefest of synopses, Henrietta Lacks was a black woman from Baltimore, a sample of whose cells were taken during her treatment for cancer by a tissue researcher, George Gey. He discovered that her cells grew infinitely, and they became the basis for an incredible amount of modern medicine—including many modern vaccines and treatments for diseases such as HIV. As well as an informative read about the cell culture industry and legal disputes over tissue property, the book charts the pervasive effects of institutional racism in science and medicine. If you don’t have time to read it, it’s been made into an upcoming HBO film starring Oprah Winfrey.

How Can Physics Underlie The Mind? by George Ellis: I was writing on Virginia Woolf in Michaelmas, a woman who was intrigued by particle physics. I decided to follow suit and escape from metaphors and modernism for an hour to immerse myself in physics. Ellis’ enthusiastic explanation: that the smallest governing particles of matter are random, not determined, floored me. Discoveries in ‘quantum uncertainty’ destroy our notions of determinism, leaving our very existence a matter of chance. Ellis further cites processes like epigenetics (DNA modification by environmental factors) as proof that our brain is not solely determined by the low level structures like the particles that constitute it, but also by ‘higher’ factors like the environment we grow up in. I finished the book with the conviction that everyone should know about scientific theories of this magnitude, physicist or not.

The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge: Doidge’s book is immensely readable. He structures his scientific information into individual stories of people with neurological or mental health problems, with one thing in common—they were able to change their brains. Although these changes appear to be miraculous, the effects are a result of a phenomenon called neuroplasticity: the brain’s ability to shape itself. Doidge recalls an individual only possessing half of their brain who could still perform most functions, demonstrating that their brain had ‘re-drawn’ its ‘networks’ into different areas. This book dismantles the body/mind division. I was particularly struck by the explanation that when a person with OCD performs a compulsive act, the repetition in the brain’s neural pathways makes the compulsion/action relationship more likely to happen again—like how sledging down a snowy hill becomes easier the more times the path is used.

The Lazarus Effect by Sam Parnia: No, not the one from the Destination: Void science-fiction series. This gripping book is about cases like that of the footballer Fabrice Muamba, who was ‘dead’ for 78 minutes after an on-pitch cardiac arrest. It is clear why this event—bringing to the public eye a rare phenomenon of life after ‘death’—captured so many people’s imagination. Parnia’s book delves into investigating death, complicating the assumption that it is a clear-cut event. What makes this book so readable is the interweaving of detailed science with philosophical theories of consciousness and identity, and Parnia’s narrative urgency and intensity in conveying to his readers the importance of recent scientific research into death.

1...867868869...2,524Page 868 of 2,524

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 Jamie Ashley