Oxford’s Men and Women both suffered Varsity defeats on Friday, as Cambridge completed a T20 Cricket double.
After comfortable victories in both the 50-over and T20 contests last year, the Women’s Blues meekly surrendered their Varsity crown after limping to an abject 74/9 in their twenty overs. Cambridge had no trouble in knocking off the runs, winning by nine wickets with some 50 balls remaining.
The Men’s match which followed was a somewhat tighter affair, but despite Matty Hughes’ valiant fifty, the Dark Blues fell just short, losing by ten runs after something of a recovery following a poor start with the bat.
Despite winning the toss on a sunny day which seemed perfect for batting, Oxford Women got off to the worst possible start at Fenner’s.
Wicket-keeper Charlotte Graham was run out in calamitous fashion off just the third ball of the innings, and strike bowler Lucy Binsted picked up the wickets off Vanessa Picker and captain Sophie Taylor within the first four overs to leave the visitors reeling at 11/3.
Imogen Brown and Sam Moore threatened some resurgence as they found some fluency at the crease, but the innings never really got going as wickets continued to fall.
Oxford managed to rack up 204 in this fixture last year, but their pitiful batting effort was epitomised this time out by Lucy Taylor’s tortured 32-ball stay at the crease, which yielded only three runs.
Leg-spinner Chloe Allison finished with a remarkable set of figures—four overs, two maidens, the wicket of Brown and just three runs conceded—as the Light Blues’ attack dominated.
A target of 75 was never going to be enough to challenge Cambridge’s batsmen, and openers Barber and Fisher accumulated steadily through the powerplay overs to reach 30 without loss.
Sarah Attrill picked up the wicket of Fisher, but as the Light Blues pierced the field with ease, they charged towards their target, eventually winning with a flick to fine-leg for four from Barber (33*).
This was Cambridge Women’s first ever win in a Varsity T20 fixture, and it was a fine way to do it.
The Men’s game saw two in-form sides face off: Patrick Tice’s Cambridge had won seven of their previous eight games, while Oxford’s Varsity treble last year was followed up by a series of strong results this season.
Despite losing the toss, Oxford got off to a strong start, with Toby Pettman’s medium pace proving hard to get away. He snared two wickets and took a catch within the first eight overs, and a sharp run-out from Matty Hughes saw the hosts slump to 34/4.
Tim Moses led something of a fightback, but dismissals in the middle overs meant Cambridge were 68/6 from 14 overs: a recovery was needed.
Fortunately for the hosts, Pettman (4-0-17-3) had bowled his full allocation, and returning Blue Johny Marsden’s increased pace played into their hands.
Moses slammed him for fourteen runs off the first three balls of the 18th over, and despite his eventual dismissal for 43, Rory Sale carried on where his teammate had left off, sending the final over of the innings for a further eighteen to leave the hosts 129/7.
Sale’s 14-ball cameo yielded 24 runs, which proved to be absolutely vital.
Vice-captain Dan Escott had been in fine form with the bat for Oxford, so it instantly felt like a bad sign when he was dismissed in the second over for just one: Moses proved impossible to keep out of the game, and forced an edge behind out of the Lincoln student with a nasty bouncer.
Jamie Gnodde and Alex Rackow came and went without proving the scorers with much trouble, while Hughes started to accumulate at the other end.
And just as Mathew Naylor became to settle at the crease, his lengthy partnership with Hughes was ended by a run-out at the worst possible time.
Hughes took the game into his own hands with the required rate climbing, and slammed two lusty blows for six in the fifteenth and sixteenth over to keep the run chase alive.
But some excellent death bowling from Moses and James Poulson, coupled with a lack of support from the other end, meant the Mancunian could not manage to pull off the chase: he fell in the final over, and Cambridge saw out the game to complete a ten-run victory.
The result meant it had been a disappointing two days for the Dark Blues, who were defeated by Manchester University yesterday in the BUCS National League 50-over semi-final.
However, their fighting performance will at least give them hope against of next week’s 50-over clash at Lord’s and the four-day game in Cambridge next month.
Scholars’ gowns are imposing and divisive. They must go
In 2015, Oxford students voted in favour of subfusc being worn to exams. When the question was debated, the central argument put forward in favour of keeping up the tradition was that subfusc acts as a mark of equality. No matter what your background or ethnicity, everyone walks into exams in the same black and white. From Wednesday to Friday of this week, OUSU will be asking students a new question: “Should OUSU oppose the wearing of differential gowns in examinations?”, or in other words, should we keep scholars’ gowns?
Some will argue that we should preserve them, valuing tradition for tradition’s sake. But as students here, we can choose which traditions to embrace, which to push to end entirely, and which to limit and adapt. We are responsible for the traditions we keep alive from one year to the next—we can’t wave them away as part of “what makes Oxford what it is”. Oxford can change. Sometimes, Oxford should change.
The hierarchical gown structure is fundamentally in conflict with ideals of community and equality that the University espouses, all the more so because the division between those wearing scholar’s gowns and those wearing commoner’s gowns is visually striking. Recently, it was decided that in exams involving face-to-face contact with examiners, candidates should all wear commoner’s gowns to neutralise the risk of bias. While the particular worry about bias on the part of examiners doesn’t apply to the case of written papers, 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. This isn’t just a hypothetical.
One student echoes the concerns of many: “Exams are stressful enough without being forcibly reminded that you didn’t do as well as other people the last time round.”
Another said: “Not having a scholar’s gown has been really embarrassing for me. I don’t like being reminded of not doing as well as I’d have liked in Prelims when I’m anxious enough as it is.”
Apart from the fact that it creates division in the student body, there is also a clear gender bias in who is awarded scholars’ gowns. “I walk into the tent and it’s all the boys wearing the gowns,” one student said. “I already feel inferior being a girl here, let alone a woman of colour, and to just be reminded of every alienating feeling while standing in the tent is the most disheartening thing before an exam.”
The intensity of the problem varies from subject to subject, and is particularly sharp in STEM subjects, where not only are men the majority, but are also disproportionately awarded firsts. Indeed, several women say they only wear their scholars’ gowns to try to correct for the gender imbalance in who is awarded scholarships in their subject: “I couldn’t stand that the men looked as if they were cleverer.” We need to be asking ourselves as a community, is all this really necessary?
The decision as to whether to wear your scholars’ gown to exams also puts scholars in an uncomfortable position. On the one hand, you might get a confidence boost that staves off impostor syndrome, but on the other you might do so at the expense of your friends’ confidence. Whatever people decide to do, it’s an uncomfortable dilemma. One student said: “I didn’t wear my gown because it encourages us to judge each other, even if subconsciously, in quite a nasty way”. One student pointed to the cost—it’s £45 and not all colleges buy them for you—and others said that wearing a scholar’s gown ended up feeling counterproductive: “I didn’t like the idea of having the pressure to live up to it.”
The question put to you in this week’s consultation isn’t about personal decisions—no one wants to single out anyone for blame. It’s about ending a practice that isn’t really working for any of us. The poll isn’t technically binding but the result will almost certainly be confirmed by OUSU Council next term. Whatever happens won’t necessarily influence university policy, but OUSU is certainly a powerful voice within the university. Students who are not eligible for the gowns are unnecessarily affected in a way that risks damaging their performance. Students who can wear the gowns are faced with an arbitrary dilemma. Let’s put people first and tradition second—vote yes!