Friday 13th June 2025
Blog Page 9

‘We need a different approach’: Students and tutors on AI in academia

Subhan Aslam
-
0
‘We need a different approach’: Students and tutors on AI in academia

With the never-ending releases of ChatGPTs, the question of generative AI looms large: where is the line between using it and relying on it? Between saving time and sacrificing learning? It’s hard to adjust to the present, but what will the future hold as it only gets more powerful? To find out what people really think, Cherwell brought together two Oxford focus groups. The first was a roundtable of eight students from a variety of subjects: the other, two academics working in the humanities and social sciences. We asked them about their experiences, hopes, concerns, and predictions. We kept them anonymous, referring to panellists by the subjects they study, so that we could have a candid discussion.

The panellists seemed divided on what ‘ethical’ usage of AI really means, whether it can have original thoughts, and the extent to which we should be using generative AI in our degrees. There was, however, a shared anxiety as to what AI means for the future and a strong sense that Oxford is unprepared to tackle these problems.

The Student Roundtable

Everyday uses
What sort of things do people use AI for in their day-to-day personal lives?

Compsci and Philosophy: I use generative AI instead of Google at this point. I also use it daily for coding my own personal projects. If it’s a simple enough app I won’t be writing a single line of code basically, and you can make some surprisingly sophisticated things.

Biology: Recently I was riding a bike and the chain fell off and I didn’t know how to reattach it so I just asked DeepSeek ‘How do you reattach a bike chain?’ and it gave me step by step instructions.

Is there a reason you didn’t use more traditional sources like YouTube or Google?

Biology: It’s a bit more tailored to the response. With the bike example, at first I didn’t know what was happening. I just told it that suddenly my bike stopped and you can’t turn the wheel anymore, and it tells you the problem and how to fix it. And then you have this back and forth that you can’t have with Google.

Compsci and Philosophy: Particularly when it’s a complex thing where you want to read a few different things and try to understand it. It condenses everything into one simple answer. Maybe it’s just me being lazy and not wanting to have to click on the website.

Philosophy and French: I’m interested in the things you guys search up, does it include political things, historical things?

Compsci and Philosophy: I guess it really depends on the topic. I think actually, for complex issues, ChatGPT’s, Deep Research is really impressive. It’ll generate a whole paper exploring the different angles and different interpretations of what people have said. Yeah, I guess I don’t have any reason specifically not to trust it.

The ethics of using AI academically
Raise your hand if you think there are situations where it is ethically okay to use generative AI: 8/8 raised their hands

Raise your hand it you think it’s ethically okay to have AI help you with a piece of work you’re doing for your degree: 4/8 raised their hands

Raise your hand if you think it’s ethically okay to give ChatGPT your notes and have it make an essay outline for you: 4/8 raised their hands

Biology: For science, it’s really useful to get a preliminary overview of a topic. The alternative is going through a lot of very dense papers that you might not understand, especially if you don’t even know the basics yet. But with AI, you can pull together sources quickly and get a brief overview so you have a rough idea of how to structure things. I don’t think it’s advanced enough yet to write a really detailed or good essay. So, I use it just for the overview, and then I put the sources together myself

Law with European Law: I’ve only really used it to understand cases. But it depends which level of ChatGPT you use. I figured out that if you use the normal version, it can make up cases, which is grand, but for some reason when you pay for it, all those problems go away. I use it to help with understanding cases and academic articles, but I never use it for submitted work. To be fair, I’ve also been given some AI software through my Disabled Students’ Allowance; stuff to make flashcards, and obviously Grammarly, which is very AI-heavy. So that’s quite interesting to me, that even DSA is now using AI-powered tools for disabled students.

People seem to be comfortable using generative AI to structure essays and give overviews. Is there a reason people aren’t using it to write their essays?

Compsci and Philosophy: I have a funny story about this. For one of my philosophy essays, I very stupidly chose an argument that, when I tried to understand it, made absolutely no sense. One late, sleep-deprived night, I uploaded the PDF of my draft and asked the AI to continue writing my essay. What it gave was way better than what I could’ve written, and it would’ve taken me ages. I highlighted the AI-generated parts in red and flagged this at the top of my essay. When I showed my tutor, they didn’t mind. I think tutorial essays are more for you than for them. It’s rude to hand in a fully AI-generated essay expecting a mark but you get what you want from the degree and your tutorials.

Would everyone feel comfortable doing the same thing and just labelling what was done by AI in red?

Law with European Law: I think for me there’s a sense of self pride, having come here off the back of my own hard work. I want to improve on my own skills and not have a robot do it for me, because if I suck at writing essays, that’s something I need to work on. If I struggle with essay technique, that’s a perfectly normal part of university life. But you don’t learn unless you make your own mistakes. I feel like getting AI to do it means you just don’t learn. Also, I just don’t feel proud, I feel guilty. I feel guilty, feel icky about it, because it’s not my work. It’s pure plagiarism, in my opinion.

University policy
If you all were advising Oxford University administration, how would you try and draw the line on an acceptable use policy for AI?

PPE 1: A big problem with making laws like that is that AI detectors are absolutely terrible, and because they are so bad at identifying AI, it would be a terrible university policy to say that if we detect AI in your work, you’re done for, because you can never be sure.

Law with European Law: To bring back the context again of disability usage of AI. If Grammarly is being used you can’t really penalize a student for that when that’s been the tools that they have been given to be able to be on a level playing field with everyone else. It’s okay using AI to a minimal extent, for example spell checking, word choice, grammar, especially in a disability context. Again, I’d also say that’s fine. Going beyond that and using it in an actual essay or in an exam, I would say goes beyond academic integrity.

PPE 2: I think that in some ways, it’s kind of like an arms race. This is less true in Oxford, where essays are graded individually, but in other universities where each essay is graded work, if everyone else is using AI, it then becomes difficult to do it all on my own while everyone else is using this tool. So, on a university level, regulators should be thinking, ‘what would I be okay with every single student in this university doing?’ I wouldn’t want every single university student to leave university having done all their readings through AI, having everything summarized by AI, and having written all their essays with AI.

Compsci and Philosophy: We shouldn’t just be thinking about the present state of AI, but also where it’s going. The fact is that this field is moving so fast, and I think we are going to have fundamentally radical transformations in the way our economy functions as a result of AI. We need a different approach to thinking about AI that equips people with the skills they will need in their future employment, rather than just sticking with what has worked for the past hundreds of years.

Biology: I think universities need to take an active approach to equipping students on how to use AI as a resource and a tool. For example, in biology AI is amazing at generating notes and resources, but at the same time it hallucinates and makes mistakes. Yet we are never taught how to use it. If universities say you can’t use AI for anything or discourage its use, then you lose out on learning this whole skill of working with AI. In the future, that is not going to be the case. We will not have future labs where all AI is banned.

Future job prospects
If you imagine the job you want five years from now… do you think AI is going to change it?

Law with European Law: I want to do music and the industry does not care about creativity being lost. It is just looking for a sexy single. So, it will just get AIs to churn out what the charts want. There is no actual individual voice there, but the industry does not care. That is something I am worried about. I do not actually see it necessarily taking away from artists’ individual artistry yet, but it is a worry considering the way the industry runs. The temptation will be there to just use it as a profit machine.

Biology: I think AI as it currently is does not have the ability to make massive changes. But I think the next system will replace a large number of principal investigators because AI will have knowledge from every single field. It will be able to identify new problems and directions much quicker and probably better than most principal investigators. It’s already doing that, but a culture change takes time.

Maths: Something I’m concerned about is that in the past we have had technologies that destroyed certain career options, like very few people are employed nowadays making saddles for horses. But it has always been the case that we were able to retreat to something else, like services and cognitive tasks. I am concerned that maybe there will come a time, perhaps in the near future, when there are fewer and fewer options for humans to retreat to, to work in. I’m not sure about the economics of how this all works out, but just naively thinking about it is concerning that the economic power of individuals will be really reduced.

PPE 2: I read something similar to that, where in the past a lot of technological innovations that actually led to jobs going down were tools meant to enhance human ability, whereas AI aims to mimic human abilities. So, I think it’s a very different kind of tool, where the end goal for AI is to replace the person, not just enhance their abilities.

Biology: But I think right now the economic incentives and everything are in line so that AI will be an agent replacing, if not all jobs, at least the jobs we would traditionally consider really high status. It seems like there will not be much meaningful work left to do.

Closing thoughts
Last one, how would you sum up your thoughts on AI?

PPE 1: I think there’s a risk it becomes a parasite that replaces human creativity entirely. Creativity, in many ways, is something that gives a lot of people a sense of purpose, and to have that replaced with AI seems completely pointless. It feels like the wrong thing entirely is being targeted. Replacing the things that people want to do rather than coming up with solutions to replace the jobs that people don’t want to do.

Philosophy and French: I find the current manifestations quite depressing really. Particularly, you know, with removing or eliding human interaction or just human effort, both in the ways that people are using it and in the way it reveals the incentives and how people think about things like educational creativity in society. I find it quite disheartening.

PPE 2: I think that, based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s had a net negative impact on the academic space in general.

Law with European Law: I think it has positive potential, but is it going to be used in that controlled, assistive way to enhance human efforts? No, I don’t think so. Because of economic incentives, the goal is basically to save costs and have AI perhaps do everything. That is why I am quite worried about how far AI will go.

Classics: There’s definitely a tension between what’s a morally acceptable way to use AI and what’s an intelligent way to use AI.

Biology: A key issue that very few people seem to know about is what the future of AI will be. This is not talked about enough. People often focus on issues AI taking away creativity but the idea of AI as more than just a tool that humans use, and how AI will be integrated into society along with the harm that could cause, these topics are rarely part of the wider discourse. I think this could potentially be very dangerous.

Maths: Today is the least capable that it ever will be. And it’s a very urgent question of; how do we control this? How do we situate in society in a way that, like, is net positive?

Compsci and Philosophy: I think we are living through completely insane times which could be the most transformative period in human history. I don’t think anyone is really taking this seriously. Society is not prepared for what is coming. Policymakers don’t understand what is happening, and progress just keeps accelerating. Soon AI will be able to automate AI research itself. According to Google’s report this year, AI is already generating 30 percent of code at Google and speeding up AI research. We are approaching a point where these systems will be vastly superhuman, and that moment is coming soon.

The Academic Panel

One of the Russell Group principles on AI that Oxford has adopted says that “Staff should be equipped to support students to use generative AI tools effectively and appropriately in their learning experience”, what’s your response to that?

Humanities Professor: I’m sure, in a fast-changing landscape, the central University felt there was no choice but to be proactive on these things. I think the adoption of that is wildly out of whack with the reality in most teaching spheres of the University. There may have been consultation of departments and faculties, but I can say that the majority of people do not feel consulted about that decision, and nor is it clear what the implications of it are. If you are, as an institution, adopting that position, then students would have a reasonable expectation of a certain level of literacy on the part of their tutors to help them navigate these waters. And we are absolutely not at that point. We have tutors, I imagine a number, who for ethical reasons or just fear reasons will never have laid eyes on a generative AI interface. They have just kept completely away from it, and they are not in a position to advise their students or to help them gain any kind of literacy.

Have you picked up on any changes in student attitudes to work since ChatGPT has started to get better?

Social Sciences Tutor: I only recently started teaching, but I do see that students are nervous about what generative AI means for them, the tools and skills that they need, and how it is affecting and changing both the job market and the political landscape. The sense I get is that beyond just, Oh, should I use it in my essays, there’s a deep unease and fear about what AI is doing to the socio-political landscape and students are thinking If ChatGPT can do it what’s the point? What I hope the fear around AI can do is prompt this deeper discussion of what is the value of the university.

Humanities Professor: One Oxford-specific risk I was thinking about as I was walking over here is that one of the impacts of AI has been to reinforce the commitment of some faculties to in-person exams. COVID had actually made it clear that certain alternative forms of assessment were possible, and effectively the arrival of ChatGPT killed those discussions. But that obviously carries a whole set of risks with it, right? I mean, we shouldn’t be committing to a mode of examination indefinitely because of fears we have about possible misuse of something. There are all kinds of implications in terms of gender disparities in performance, neurodiversity. My worry, to put it in a nutshell, is that Oxford structures allow us to avoid some of those problems, or those questions, rather than think about them. We can always say to our students, you know, use it if you want, but you’ll have to be there in the exam hall. We are hamstringing ourselves if we allow that to shut down the wider discussion.

Where is the limit between getting help from AI and where should we draw the line to where it is wrong for ethical reasons?

Social Sciences Tutor: I am what could be called an AI abolitionist. I think there are no use cases for it, and this goes beyond the education system. Even if there was a use case I think the environmental harms, the money flow, the kind of companies and politics you’re supporting by using it is enough to say absolutely no to any usage. I think it also disrupts students’ learning processes in terms of, like, what is the point of writing an essay? Which is that you learn, you learn how to think. You learn how to critically examine. And so, the problem is not that they’re deceiving us, the problem is that they’re that students are missing out on the opportunity to learn.

Humanities Professor: What concerns me about the open endorsement of certain uses of it, is that we don’t know yet what impact it has on people’s learning. I think in a world where students are feeling pressured into using it for tutorial essays we should think about ways to reiterate the basis of our pedagogy, which is predicated on this idea that, you know, if you write me bad essays, you haven’t wrecked your grade.

There are students turning to AI because they feel pressured but there are also those who feel it genuinely helps them with their work. It can be used to turn notes into flashcards, give prompts on grammar, and help you prepare for lectures. It’s not just giving it your essay question and saying ‘Write me 2000 words’.

Social Sciences Tutor: I think those types of usage result from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the technology is doing. It’s just an incredibly competent, environmentally destructive magic eight ball. It’s guessing; it’s literally producing bullshit. Which is not to deride the excellent other AI, non-generative AI tools like spell check. But what I would say to the kind of usage you’re talking about is that generative AI is being used because it exists, but if you were going to design a learning tool, it’s not how you would design it.

Humanities Professor: I’m pretty torn on this question because pragmatically of course I can see the appeal for students of these time saving techniques. There are menial tasks in my own research which I’ve been tempted to use AI for. I think to encourage and incorporate more reflection by students on their own learning processes would be valuable. Reflecting on why they’re using ChatGPT and what they’re getting from it would cut out the things people are doing out of fear and what people are doing because it’s genuinely useful. But as an academic institution, that should be a matter for thought and discussion, not just something that we rule on one way or the other.

Current University policy says “ethical and appropriate use” is okay, has Oxford gone too fast with that?

Social Sciences Tutor: My position, which I wish was the university’s position, is to say absolutely not. We will not pay to license any of these generative AI tools, and we will resist their adoption in any shape or form. This will never happen, but this is what I wish the policy was for two reasons. One is the environmental cost of the increased emissions. Second, if you look at who is running and benefiting from these companies, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, the Maga movement. It’s being used to surveil people who are coming into the United States and putting them in ICE detention facilities. We can’t separate that. So, I wish the university’s policy was to say that we abolish and resist generative AI.

Is it too late?

Social Sciences Tutor: I don’t think so. Generative AI could go away like that *snaps fingers*. But there is a kind of nihilism and this sense that tech is imposed upon us. With AI, I don’t have to search out ChatGPT; everywhere I go, I am being subjected to AI. People go, oh, that’s just meant to be the way that the tech is. But it doesn’t have to be.

A lot of students expressed concerns about their future job prospects; what would you say to them?

Social Sciences Tutor: I think it is not that AI can do those jobs better. The only reason it looks like it can is because of stolen data from stuff that humans have already done. But that being said, it does not mean that AI won’t be used to cut costs. I think students are absolutely right to be despondent about what AI is doing. But, if Oxford mobilises or organises at the student level, at the academic level, it has a lot of power in what it can influence and decide to do. So, I’m despondent, but hopeful.

Humanities Professor: I would encourage students not to pre-emptively give up on ambitions they might hold on to on the assumption that AI is going to render their dreams obsolete. Technological changes of this magnitude that threaten to erase the significance of certain features of humanity, I think, end up generating a kind of irrepressible appetite for the distinctively human. I think it’s hard to feel hopeful without thinking in those very abstract terms. I’m not sure that’s much help to a student who’s worrying about their individual job prospects with an English degree or a history degree. But I do think that assuming the world into which one is moving is one where those things will just not exist, that feels premature to me.

Full Steam Ahead! Little Clarendon’s bougie bagels

Beatrix Arnold
-
0
Full Steam Ahead! Little Clarendon’s bougie bagels

Little Clarendon Street is known for its string of artisanal cafes, a place where the avocado toast enthusiast is spoilt for choice. Nestled beside Gail’s, The Steamhouse fits right in, serving an array of bagels, coffees, and pastries in accordance with its millennial aesthetic. Its interior is striking, and decidedly Instagrammable. With hanging plants and LED lights, it encapsulates the Pinterest ideal of the hipster cafe, cheerfully accompanied by a soundtrack of 2010s hits. 

Unfortunately, I caught them on a bad day – they’ve run out of halloumi… before 1pm. This wouldn’t be too much of an issue if it didn’t form the basis of most of their menu. In fact, halloumi seems to be the main ingredient keeping The Steamhouse afloat. Sorely mourning its loss, I go for the only vegan option available, the VLT, made up of ‘bacon’, lettuce, tomato, and black pepper ‘mayo’. The paucity of choice for vegans, and even vegetarians (with only three vegetarian options, all of which rely on halloumi), seems out of character for an eatery which projects a hipster, LA-style energy. There’s no shortage of options for meat-eaters, however. In fact, the menu almost privileges them, with an entire section dedicated to ‘deluxe’ deli meat bagels, complete with extras. The kitchen, separated from the dining area by only a counter, appeared flustered, quickly overwhelmed around lunchtime, and it took 20 minutes for my bagel to be prepared. 

Considering its price, it was a little disappointing, and could have used a more flavoursome sauce, but the bagel itself was perfectly chewy. The tater tots, on the other hand, were a highlight, with a crispy outside and pillowy interior. Regretfully, they do charge extra for sauces (even ketchup), yet the chipotle mayo had just the right kick to enhance the dish. To drink, I got the cherry iced matcha; it was delicious, not overpoweringly sweet as I had feared, although predictably overpriced. 

If you have the money (and time) to spend, The Steamhouse is a great place for lunch, with tasty food and laid-back vibes. A takeaway bagel eaten in the nearby Wellington Square on a sunny day makes for a great picnic – the proximity to G&D’s for a supplementary sweet treat is an added bonus. But without a student discount, and especially during a shortage of the halloumi on which they rely so much, the aesthetic alone might not be enough to keep the steam rolling.

Price: All bagels priced at £8.50, tater tots (£3.00), cherry iced matcha (£4.95).

Gregory Crewdson: How to remain relevant in the world of fine art photography

Richard Kuehl
-
0
Gregory Crewdson: How to remain relevant in the world of fine art photography

For anyone embarking on their photography journey now, the world of image creation can seem very daunting. The market is oversaturated with photographers, all creating broadly similar and anonymous content. In such an environment, it is easy to feel a little overwhelmed if not helpless.

In such times, it can be helpful to look at some of the more unique photographers out there who have managed to gain public recognition through their singular vision. A prime example of this is the American photographer Gregory Crewdson. Born in 1962, he has a keen interest in creating scenes centred around small town America. The son of a clinical psychologist, his images combine a focus on the mundane with the uncanny, often unsettling narrative elements.

Crewdson, who obtained degrees in both photography and film history and in American literature uses photography as a means of telling self contained stories. The scenes that he captures are often very intimate and evocative, mirroring motion picture stills. In fact, his entire creative approach echoes that of big film productions. Working with crews of up to 100 people, Crewdson’s images are oftentimes taken on specially designed sets and highly choreographed. 

The resulting images are highly detailed and require the viewer to spend time studying their composition, props and lighting, as well as the various characters depicted in them. What emerges can at times make the viewer slightly uncomfortable. The photographer’s work has not without reason been likened to that of director David Lynch. 

Similar to the latter’s film Blue Velvet (1986), Crewdson has a keen interest in dissecting the American dream and depicting the seedy underbelly of small town America. Themes like alienation, death and decay all imbue his work with a slightly eerie tone that contrasts with the beauty of their lighting and scenery. 

Ever since his series Twilight (1998-2002) Crewdson has been perfecting his craft, culminating in his three series Cathedral of Pines (2013-2014), An Eclipse of Moths (2018-2019) and Eveningside (2021-2022). Not unlike the painters of old, Crewdson is a slow worker, spending weeks if not months perfecting every single image. Most of his photographic series only span a little over 20 pictures. 

However, for me, this is one of his greatest strengths rather than a weakness. Many people feel under pressure to produce and share work on a regular basis. This is particularly true for photographers operating in the fine arts space. The subsequent rushed style of photographic creation often leads to lackluster and derivative work. This is naturally not the case for every photographer. However, in a world in which people have to compete for attention and digital cameras have made it possible to take hundreds of images a day, overproduction is a real risk.

The lesson to be learned from Crewdson’s body of work is that one doesn’t need access to large scale production crews to create meaningful art. Nevertheless, carefully curating one’s pictures and spending more time on the conceptual phase might be beneficial to a lot of creatives. 

Especially in the coming years, fine art photographers will have to compete increasingly with generative artificial intelligence on social media platforms and in gallery spaces. Yet AI is currently a blunt tool at best as it is not able to generate images as intentionally detailed or narratively significant as those of Crewdson. Because of this, I believe that photographers will have to move into a space not unlike the one now occupied by him in order to remain relevant. 

The ability to create multi layered and stylistically coherent series of photographs will be what will be what sets photographers apart in the coming decades. Crewdson should be a model to anyone interested in following a similar path. His images draw the viewer in and make them pause. They can’t be glanced at but have to be taken in slowly, piece by piece. In a world in which everything, even image creation is becoming increasingly hectic, Crewdson’s approach provides a much needed slowdown of the pace.

Film photography: How I went from believer to sceptic

Richard Kuehl
-
0
Film photography: How I went from believer to sceptic

I’m far from the first person to point out the recent revival of analogue technologies. Ever since the late 2010’s, both vinyl records and film have seen a steady rise in sales and consumer interest. Strangely this phenomenon is not as nostalgia-driven as one might assume. Most of the people who are buying vintage film cameras or roam around record stores are in their 20’s. They were born long after these technologies reached their heyday. 

So what is the appeal? To me it clearly seems that what these people are looking for is a sense of connection with these mediums. In a world where streaming platforms – such as Spotify – offer millions of songs and any smartphone is capable of taking good pictures, these things seem to have lost some of their materiality. We are virtually overwhelmed by an endless stream of choices, yet none of the songs we listen to or the pictures we take truly belong to us. They are virtual, intangible echoes.

Physical media like records, 35mm film and even DVDs do more than provide a reassuring sense of permanent ownership; they sell the consumer a tactile experience. The thrill of browsing for old vinyl discs in a store, the slap of an SLR’s mirror, the whirring of a DVD player revving up: these are all things that the virtual world cannot replicate. 

In a world where everybody seems to suffer both, from a sense of audio-visual overstimulation, and a lack of connection with the things they consume, these outdated technologies seem like the perfect antidote. I certainly believed so – and it seems many in my generation feel the same. But lately, there is something about the modern film photography culture that I have found increasingly troubling.

I first began my film photography journey during COVID after purchasing an old East German Pratika SLR at a flea market. It was a simple but durable camera that made for a fun shooting experience. Soon, I upgraded to a nicer Olympus and even ventured into medium format photography. What drew me in wasn’t just the grain and colour rendering of the film, but above all, the idea of being able to freeze a moment in time on something tangible and lasting. Once an image is fixed on a negative, it can no longer be modified or removed.

Film negatives can last over 100 years and possess an effective resolution not dissimilar to that of a modern day digital camera, if developed and enlarged correctly. In an era where manipulating images via photoshop or generative AI has become frighteningly easy, film photography seems to offer up a sense of authenticity. What you shoot is what you get. 

But that promise of authenticity is often wasted. Surveys reveal that most people never collect their negatives from the lab after having their film developed. 

Instead the majority of film photographers  shoot film purely to obtain digital image files to upload on social media, discarding the actual pictures taken. This is baffling, especially given the ever increasing price of film. The average “budge” roll of 35mm consumer film, with development and scans, costs about £24. More premium options easily doubling this price. 

Given the financial struggles of our generation, this is clearly not sustainable. By not developing and printing their film, many miss out on the analogue nature of analogue photography. They not only enhance the shooting experience, but also bring the cost of film down dramatically. However, few people today are privileged enough to have access to darkroom facilities. 

So what’s the alternative? Consider this: professional digital DSLR’s from about 10-15 years ago provide much of the same experience as film SLRs without the hyper digital nature of modern mirrorless cameras. You look through a real viewfinder, not a screen. You hear the satisfying click of a mechanical shutter when you take a shot. These cameras are sturdy, affordable and take characterful images.

While they don’t fully replicate the film experience, their more manual nature should make any casual film shooter happy whilst saving him or her a lot of money. Although digital SLRs won’t be able to fully replace the joy of developing and seeing physical negatives for the first time, they still provide an enjoyable semi-analogue experience. Personally, I’ve decided to relegate my film cameras to the role of decorative objects on mantelpieces. Unless film prices drop drastically in the coming years, that’s where they’ll have to stay. As for their replacement, I decided to invest in an old Canon 5D Mark II, an insider tip for all those on the lookout for a digital SLR. 

Inclusive music venue set to open on Little Clarendon Street

Amelia Gibbins
-
0
Inclusive music venue set to open on Little Clarendon Street

A local charity is set to open a new music venue on Little Clarendon Street, aiming to create an inclusive space for women, transgender and non-binary people.

YWMP is a grassroots organisation that was set up 25 years ago, though its project on Little Clarendon will be the first physical hub for the Oxford-based group. The charity focuses on working with those aged 14-25, and the venue on Little Clarendon Street aims to help fill the gaps in spaces for young people in the city.

The founder of the charity, Zahra Haji Fath Ali Tehrani, told Cherwell that “there is a tiny youth provision in Oxford. Youth clubs have been shut down and there aren’t really spaces for young people to hang out, especially those who are most marginalised in the community.”

One of the inspirations behind the project is to contribute to a healthier gig culture in Oxford, as according to the charity it is not currently centred in safety. The founder of YWMP explained to Cherwell that the culture of live music is “one of the main reasons why we are trying to push for this. We want to disrupt how gig-going culture is so that most people feel they can show up and be supported when they see their favourite musicians play.”

The venue will be on Little Clarendon Street, next to Common Ground Café, a social coworking space and community arts hub. Cherwell has previously reported on the University of Oxford’s annexing of Common Ground for its redevelopment plans of Wellington Square buildings. The University plans to transform the “life-expired and poor performing” building that houses Common Ground into a state-of-the-art academic facility.

Costs for the venue have been covered for the first three years by Youth Music, a national charity that has provided financial support to music-based projects since 2009. YWMP’s founder told Cherwell that “Little Clarendon is not a choice, as we would never choose to be in North Oxford as it is a very wealthy area. We are very grateful this opportunity has come up, but it is not a choice. We don’t know how we are going to sustain this, with the pressure of the space potentially being knocked down, but our lease is until December 2026.”

However, they described the opportunity to run the venue as a stepping stone to learn how to run their own space. “We are not going to stop here, and we hope that it just brings people together,” they remarked. The founder of YWMP explained that they hope to have an impact on the rest of the wider Oxford music scene, and want to encourage other venues to work harder to be more inclusive.

The venue is set to open in July 2025.

Summer Eights day one: Live updates

Sebastian Page
-
0
Summer Eights day one: Live updates

09:44 – I’m locked in at the OSPL office, eagerly awaiting four days of scintillating Summer Eights. The atmosphere at the river is absolutely electric. I don’t think anyone’s even there yet but that doesn’t matter.

12:10 – 5 minute gun goes off for Women’s Division VII, headed by St Anne’s College W2.

12:29 – Big movement in the first race of the day! Jesus W3 bump Keble W3, unfortunate for the latter who were close to bumping themselves. Wadham W3 were next to bump, taking down Exeter, before Somerville bump Reuben College. St John’s W3 also managed a bump on Queen’s W3. Throughout the race, from Long Bridge to the very end, Anne’s and Worcester were locked in a dog-fight, Worcester W3 at one point having a quarter length on Anne’s. The crew that started the race from the lead held strong through, and rowed over to become the sandwich boat for the Division VI race at 13:15. Next up is Men’s Division VI, headed by Hertford.

12:40 – 5 minute gun for Men’s Division VII. Comment from St Anne’s cox Ben O’Donnell: ‘Whole crew leaning out and pushing off.’

13:08 – Plenty of movement in the Men’s Division VII too. The Klaxon sounded due to a swan impeding the racing line in the gut, meaning Pembroke were unable to catch Hertford (who had a large gap behind them at the Long Bridge) at the headship after St Anthony’s O2 bumped Worcester O3. Wadham bumped St John’s, Balliol bumped Queen’s and St Hilda’s bumped Queen’s to get out of 85th [overall] place.

13:49 – After Pembroke catch a nasty crab, Anne’s bump to move into Division VI for tomorrow. St Catherine’s bump Anthony’s to move up towards the top, while Exeter bump Mansfield to become the sandwich boat for the Division V race at 14:15.

14:17 – HUGEEE DRAMA in Men’s Division VI. Green Templeton row over at the head to become the sandwich boat for Division V, but in Balliol’s effort to catch second-placed Linacre, they impale a houseboat. After John’s had already bumped New, Hilda’s bumped Univ, and Mansfield bumped Oriel, it means that Teddy jump all the way from third-last to third-placed in the Division for tomorrow, that’s just the third triple overbump ever. Unfortunately for Hertford, none of that drama meant that they could bump. As a result, they’ll have to do it all over again tomorrow.

14:43 – Hertford the only crew to row over in Women’s Division V. After a long chase by Jesus that brought them almost all the way to the end, Hertford were saved by a Reuben crew that send a heartbroken Jesus tumbling back six places. The other bumps from the race were as follows: Teddy bumped Hugh’s to move to third in the Division, New bumped Regent’s right behind them (both of these bumps occurred to allow Reuben their monumental overbump). Somerville bumped Balliol, Merton bumped St Peter’s, and Exeter claimed their second scalp of the day, bumping Queen’s to jump up a Division ahead of tomorrow.

15:16 – Men’s Division V sees a return to normality after the impaling incident. Merton row over to take on the sandwich boat role for Division IV, while Reuben bump Exeter and Queen’s bump Jesus. Univ bumped New near the bottom of the Division, but representatives from both colleges have been called to the marshalls for a review…

15:53 – In Women’s Division IV, in a slightly bizarre turn of events, only one boat (Christ Church at the head) rowed over, but there were no overbumps as Oriel bumped Magdalen, Wadham bumped Linacre, Green Templeton bumped Lincoln thanks to some smart coxing near the end, and Worcester bumped Brasenose in a similarly thrilling at-the-death affair. To round out the division, Keble bumped John’s to begin their ascent up the ranks, and Hertford bumped Wolfson to start tomorrow in front of the sandwich boat.

16:13 – St Anne’s M1 comfortably row over in Men’s Division IV, and will be chasing Somerville in the Men’s Division III later, while St Cross consolidate their position in the Division by bumping Catz M2. It was one of the less eventful races of the day so far, as the other bumps included St Peter’s bumping Magdalen M2, Brasenose M2 bumping Teddy M2, and St Hilda’s bumping Keble M2.

16:38 – Very few bumps in Women’s Division III. Just Queen’s overtaking Worcester near the top of the Division, and Univ bumping Corpus Christi near the bottom. So Christ Church will have to have another go at moving up tomorrow, while Somerville will get their chance at chasing Trinity in Division II at 17:15.

17:00 – St Anne’s M1 manage to bump Somerville M1 fairly early on to move themselves up to Division III, earning themselves a later start tomorrow. Meanwhile at the front, Exeter M1 powered through at the head, comfortably securing the sandwich boat spot, where they’ll be chasing Brasenose. Meanwhile, Wolfson bumped Corpus, and Univ bumped Linacre.

17:42 – Plenty of movement in Women’s Division II, yet just like Women’s Division IV, none of which comes in the form of overbumps. New concede to Lincoln at the head of the race, so the latter will have the opportunity to elevate themselves to Women’s Division I at 18:15, and Jesus will be their target. Hertford ended up pretty lonely in the race, being the only team to row over. Somerville bumped Trinity to move up, while Merton bumped Catz, Linacre bumped Exeter, Green Templeton bumped Anne’s, and Lady Margaret Hall bumped Mansfield.

17:53 – Men’s Division II starts off with a bang as LMH, Jesus and Merton all jostle near the lead. Merton began to overlap on Jesus, but all the while Jesus had managed to gain a quarter length on LMH. In the end, Jesus are forced to concede, leaving LMH to row through to sandwich position. Lower down in the rankings, St. Hugh’s manage to bump Catz, and Worcester bump Lincoln. Exeter also pull off the bump on Brasenose, sending the latter down to Division III for tomorrow.

18:20 – WADHAM TAKE THE HEADSHIP IN WOMEN’S DIVISION I

18:33 – For the third time today, only one boat has rowed over in a Women’s Division. This time round that was Balliol, who hold on to seventh position. Pembroke bump Univ to move up to third, while Wolfson bumped Teddy to swap sixth for fifth. Behind Balliol, Keble bumped Oriel, Magdalen bumped John’s and Lincoln bumped Jesus in the battle for Turl Street, which means that the former will start racing tomorrow in Division I. Lots of the bumps allegedly occurred as a result of Christ Church, who stopped in the middle of the river after being bumped by Wadham. By congesting the river, the gaps between the crews narrowed dramatically.

18:44 – One minute gun goes off for the last race of the day: Men’s Division I.

18:52 – Oriel retain Men’s Headship.

19:03 – It was a much more subdued affair in the Men’s Division I, as Oriel rowed over comfortably, easing off in the final stretch with no competition even close to pressing them (having a few Olympians might help with that). There were plenty other extended chases however, as New reeled Teddy in until the bump was inevitable, and Wadham eventually conceded to Trinity after some considerable pursuit. Elsewhere in the race, Wolfson bumped Keble to move up into third in the Headship, and LMH failed to convert their opportunity to move up, and will head back to the top of Division II tomorrow. That wraps up today’s racing, which has been filled with some manic races, drastic crashes, and the eventual changing hands of the Headship on one side. With three days still left though, there’s a lot of rowing still to be done…

The afterlife of stories: The art and ambiguity of literary retellings

Saskia Maini
-
0
The afterlife of stories: The art and ambiguity of literary retellings

Love, betrayal, justice, jealousy: these are timeless themes, woven into the human experience for millennia. It’s no surprise, then, that they have shaped our literature for so long. They reappear time and time again, in the works of Homer and Shakespeare, Dickens and Austen,  Orwell and Woolf. They never grow old – and why should they? Humans haven’t fundamentally changed. So why should our stories?  

Retellings permeate culture. From operas to ballets, films to theatre, and novels  to children’s fairy tales, we are ceaselessly reshaping the old into the new. In childhood we absorb these familiar stories unawares. The Lion King (1994) borrows from Hamlet; West Side Story (1961; 2021) replays Romeo and Juliet; She’s The Man (2023) took inspiration from Twelfth Night; and Gnomeo and Juliet (2011) – well, that one is admittedly less subtle. Even The Chronicles of Narnia offers a mythic, if loosely rendered, retelling of Christian scripture. Later in life we encounter retellings in more nuanced forms: Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea reframes Brontë’s depiction of the madwoman in the attic of Thornfield Hall, while Percival Everett’s James interrogates Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn through a contemporary lens.  

But even translations are, in my view, a form of retelling. Translations do not map onto the original word-for-word; there is (as those of us who know the tribulations of translating can well attest) no accurate method of mechanical linguistic translation. Direct translations sometimes simply cannot exist. There is no precise equivalent to the Spanish ‘sobremesa’, the Portuguese ‘saudade’, or the German ‘Waldeinsamkeit’ in English. Each term encapsulates unique cultural experiences.  

Translating, therefore, does require some degree of interpretive intervention. The philosophy  of the translator shapes just how far the extent of this revision goes. Character names, idioms, and story structure may be recalibrated to align with new audiences. This element of retelling holds true even within a language, as older texts require adaptation to remain compelling. Seamus Heaney’s acclaimed take on Beowulf is illustrative of this: it is widely regarded as both a translation, and a reinvention. Poet Andrew Motion described it as “a masterpiece out of a masterpiece”, testament to the creativity required for such a project. 

But why do we continually retell the same stories, repackaging them for new audiences?  

Much of our love and affinity for such stories is rooted in what may be termed the ‘Volksgeist’: the cultural consciousness or collective spirit of a people. More precisely, it stems from the  workings of cultural memory – the shared body of references, knowledge, stories, values, and symbols passed down through generations. These stories help to shape how a society views itself, and how it is remembered. Cultural memory not only anchors identity, but also articulates the overarching characteristics, values, and anxieties of a given historical moment.

A quintessential example of this phenomenon is the Grimms’ Fairy Tales collection.  Originally published as the Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Children’s and Household Tales), in it  the brothers compiled a vast variety of stories. Today, it is often regarded as a collection of  fantastical bedtime stories, but this project was more ambitious. In early nineteenth century  Germany, still composed of disparate principalities and remnants of the Holy Roman Empire,  these stories preserved and generated German folklore and culture, contributing to the growing sense of national pride and shared heritage. Many cultural historians often  emphasise this cultural nationalism in Germany’s eventual unification of 1871. Preserving  our stories, then, is not merely nostalgic – it sustains identity, and it evolves with society. 

Recasting canonical stories within contemporary settings serves a crucial mediating function: it renders them more digestible for modern audiences whilst preserving their thematic core. From modern ‘No Sweat Shakespeare’ translations to dystopian retellings of Ovid’s  Metamorphoses, such adaptations bridge centuries. In this sense, adaptation becomes survival – a Darwinian transformation that ensures lasting relevance.  

Retellings also allow for a re-examination of older ideological assumptions. Gender, race,  power, and identity can be interrogated through a modern lens. For older literature to remain  resonant, it must be recontextualised for today’s values – carving out space for female  agency, pluralistic identities, and postcolonial voices. This is particularly pressing during the  digital age, where literature competes with podcasts, streaming, and social media for  audiences’ attention. Reinvention rejuvenates the relevance of a work by adapting to the  sensibilities of new generations. Though these stories persist due to narrative strength, their  longevity depends on their capacity for transformation.  

So it seems retellings of our stories do indeed have true intrinsic value. They may serve a modern audience, provide access to a story for speakers of different languages, or reimagine and revitalise popular literary worlds of the past. Most importantly, in my view, they provide us with familiar characters. This allows Jungian archetypes to appear time and time again and become recognisable to the collective unconscious. Jung held that humans possess an innate understanding of universal symbols (archetypes), such as Order, Chaos, Light and Darkness. Whilst I do not agree  that we are born with innate recognition of these symbols from birth, I do believe retellings of stories are important in curating such archetypes anda shared ‘Volksgeist’ which shapes our society and relationships.

What books do professors of different subjects read?

Harriet Breakey
-
0
What books do professors of different subjects read?

In discussion of ‘the great man theory’, Professor Dominic Scott discussed his recent reading – War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy – during his lectures on Plato’s Republic last term. Where Tolstoy and Plato stand on the great man theory has somewhat escaped me; the more interesting takeaway was Scott’s choice of reading material. I imagine a thick, intimidating, leather bound volume which is bound to be full of archaic language. Scott himself mentioned that it was necessary to read War and Peace twice to fully get to grips with it. It sounds like a slog and isn’t something I’ll be tackling any time soon.

Of course an Oxford philosophy professor is reading such classic literature as War and Peace. But how usual is this? And what do our professors read? Is the mass consumption of classic literature a trait unique to our humanities professors? Or is this more widespread amongst academics? 

To quench my curiosity, I reached out to a number of professors and tutors at my college to find out what they read in their spare time. Not only did I receive a surprising number of responses, but some tutors had kindly spent a lot of time detailing their reading habits, giving an extensive list of titles and authors, and recommending some of their favourite books. As one might expect, there were far more responses from the humanities professors compared to those in STEM subjects, yet this is not to say there was no engagement from that field. One computer science professor got in touch to let me know that he sadly did not have much time to read anything other than scientific papers.

I asked these professors whether they found reading to be an escape from their field of study or if reading was yet another way they could remain immersed in their subject. The response I received overwhelmingly favoured reading as a form of wider research. Associate Professor of French, Simon Kemp, shared that he had been reading Mathématiques Congolaises by In Koli Jean Bofane. Written in French by a Congolese author, the story follows a young man who uses maths to make sense of the world around him. He reflected that even if what he reads isn’t used for research or teaching, it’s all literature and sparks ideas and comparisons as well as informing us of the diversity of literary culture around the world. Although it was reassuring to hear that he is often more enthused about beginning a new book than finishing those he had started.

I was intrigued by a recommendation from my ancient philosophy tutor, Associate Professor Karen Margrethe Nielsen: Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead by Olga Tokarczuk is a murder mystery novel set during Polish winter. The novel follows Janina as she attempts to uncover who has been committing violent murders in her isolated village. Nielsen also mentioned her recent reading, Armand V by Dag Solstad, a Norwegian writer who sadly passed away last month. Armand V follows Armand as he grapples with his duty to support his country in foreign wars and his private aversion to combat. While Nielsen does not read philosophical novels, she enjoys when the main characters grapple with a philosophical question as these things are best addressed when “immersed in human life”.

Many of the professors I contacted shared that they used their leisure time to read articles and books related to papers they are currently writing. Having just finished reading The Spice Route by John Keay, Professor Charles Spence, psychologist and head of the Crossmodal Research Laboratory, finds that leisure reading is a chance to carry out research. The Spice Route combined research for a paper on spices with a sense of escapism. Similarly, for Renaud Lambiotte, professor of mathematics, leisure reading time is a chance to “open your scientific horizons”; his focus is upon discovering papers either directly or less directly related to his field of study. Surprisingly, he also enjoys French comics and had recently been reading some poems by the Russian poetess Anna Akhmatova.

It appears common for professors to read around their professional subject during their spare time. Associate Professor Robin Klemm, a tutor of medicine at Somerville, reads lay science literature not directly on his field of research. He doesn’t feel the need to escape because of his genuine scientific interest. Yet in historical novels he finds a sense of connectedness and integration. For stipendiary lecturer of plant biology, Timothy Walker, similar escapism can be found in regency romance by the likes of Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer. Dr Luke Pitcher has recently been taking a break from the classical world with the satirical novel The Way We Live Now by Anthony Trollope.

For the historians among us, Associate Professor of medieval history, Benjamin Thompson, recommends The Bookbinder of Jericho by Pip Williams. Set during World War I, it tells the story of twins who live in a narrowboat and work as bookbinders at Oxford University Press. Thompson shared many of his recent reads including Precipice by Robert Harris, which tells of Herbert Asquith’s affair with Venetia Stanley; The Cadfael Chronicles by Ellis Peters, a medieval murder mystery series; and A Woman of No Importance by Sonia Purnell, a book about the life of a female spy working during World War II.

Engaging with our tutors and professors in this way was surprisingly refreshing. Not only was their reading incredibly varied but there is a lot here I shall be adding to my own TBR. Having anticipated more War and Peace and the like, the literature our tutors partake in seems far more accessible than initially thought. The eagerness with which they shared the books they have enjoyed was also rather humanising; it seems students and tutors may have more in common than one might expect.

Summer Eights preview: A dummy’s guide

Isaac Gavaghan
-
0
Summer Eights preview: A dummy’s guide

As Summer Eights approaches, excitement is building in college boathouses up and down the Isis. However, for those who are not lucky enough to be friends with rowers, the vast expanse of jargon can be rather confusing terrain. Never fear! Cherwell is here to explain…

Summer Eights was first held a few weeks before the battle of Waterloo, in 1815, and is now held in 5th week of every Trinity term. Beginning on Wednesday and ending on Saturday, boats line up in divisions of twelve, starting 130 feet apart, tethered to the bank until the final seconds by a 50-foot rope known as a bungline. Once the starting gun goes off, the aim of the race is to bump the boat in front, either by making physical contact, or by forcing the cox of the boat to concede to avert an imminent crash. Once a bump has occurred, the two boats involved are out of the race, and the next day the bumped boat will start below the boat that bumped it. If a bump occurs ahead of a boat, then this means that only by catching the boat which began the race three boats ahead can a bump be obtained – this type of bump is called an overbump. In this scenario, the boat which achieved the bump moves up three places and the bumped boat moves down three places.  

The starting order in the top four divisions is determined by the final results of the previous year’s racing. However, for the bottom three divisions, there is a qualifying ‘rowing on’ race in which the top 37 boats on the men’s and women’s sides get to compete. ‘Rowing on’ is held on the Saturday of 4th week, and this year saw a very competitive field. Whilst last year saw only one women’s crew and two men’s crews fail to qualify, this year five women’s crews and 21 men’s crews were told they wouldn’t be racing. In the bottom three divisions, the starting order is a randomised list of the 37 qualifying crews. As a result, those with very strong ‘rowing on’ times can begin below those with much weaker performances. This leaves some very strong boats in low starting positions for the first day of racing. One to watch on the men’s side are Balliol College M4 with their remarkable rowing on time of two minutes and thirty-three seconds, which was a full 32 seconds faster than Balliol M3’s time of 3.05. Balliol M4 will be starting in the lowest division of Summer Eights which will be racing at 12:45 on Wednesday. On the women’s side, Wadham College W3 qualified fourth in rowing on with an impressive time of three minutes and seventeen seconds, and will also be starting in the lowest ‘rowing on’ division, starting at 12.15.

At the top of the river, the battle for the headship is shaping up to be a close contest. In the women’s Division I, Christ Church College currently hold the headship with Wadham, University College, and Pembroke College giving chase. The men’s division one is led by Oriel College, with Christ Church, Keble College, and Wolfson College close behind. For the crew that is Head of the River on Saturday, the reward for their early starts and endless ergs will be the honour of processing through Oxford carrying an old wooden boat which they will ceremonially burn in their front quad. 

Racing starts on Wednesday 28th May and ends on Saturday 31st May, with races starting every half hour from 12.15 to 18.45 and all races starting one hour earlier on Saturday. Get ready for a great week of bumps racing and a weekend of parties once the boat club drinking bans lift on Saturday!

Watch out for our page where we’ll bring you the latest, updating with the live results as they come through.

“It is not my intention to resign”: Oxford Union president addresses crowd following indicative no confidence motion

Noah Robson
-
0
“It is not my intention to resign”: Oxford Union president addresses crowd following indicative no confidence motion

CW: Sexual assault and rape

Oxford Union president Anita Okunde insisted she had no plans to resign in her first public statement since an indicative motion of no confidence was passed in her leadership. A crowd of over 100 assembled in the Union’s Goodman Library on Monday afternoon to hear the speech, with several others speaking in support of the president too.

Whilst the indicative motion passed by the Standing Committee (TSC) had no substantive effect, it was accompanied by a public letter signed by eleven members of TSC calling for a public apology and for the President to resign. The letter claimed that the president had abused her power by briefly banning ex-president Israr Khan from the buildings, a move which was later overturned.

The speech was initially set to be delivered in a meeting of Consultative Committee – the weekly meeting of all members of the Union – but this was postponed four minutes before it was scheduled to begin. Only one of those who signed a public letter expressing no confidence in the president was present in the room.

In her statement, Okunde said: “I have been deeply disheartened by the false narratives that have emerged around a matter I had always hoped would be handled privately and in good faith. As President, I made repeated offers to discuss the situation with the parties involved – in the evening, the morning before the Standing Committee, and immediately after the meeting. 

“These offers were not taken up. It is unfortunate that we now find ourselves in a position where an issue that could have been resolved privately has become the subject of public discourse, not by choice but by circumstance.”

She went on to describe a “deeply disturbing” incident that she was informed had happened over the weekend. “I was told that a member of one of the Union’s committees – not the one in question today – was seen in a public bar violently stabbing a stuffed animal between the legs while saying it represented me.

“I have been in a state of shock ever since. But powered through whilst also managing physical pain and carrying out my responsibilities as President. Sadly, this is not the first time I or others have faced misogyny, threats, or discriminatory behaviour during my time at the Union.”

Following Okunde’s speech, multiple other individuals made statements in support of her, including ex-Treasurer Sarah Rana. She openly admitted that several people who were expressing no confidence were some of her “best friends”, but added: “I think it’s important that just because people are your friends, it doesn’t mean you don’t call them out when you think they’re wrong.”

Addressing the controversy over the banning of Israr Khan from the buildings, Okunde said she had apologised for the manner in which the move took place, but claimed that no apology was given in return.

On this, Khan told Cherwell: “It is very unfortunate that the President, instead of offering an apology for what she in private admits to have been wrong and an abuse of her power, on Monday put her ego before the interest of the Society.

“I am appalled by the President’s continued lies and refusal to take responsibility for her actions.”

After an extended round of applause in response to the president insisting she would not resign, she concluded her speech: “I remain committed to fostering a safe and inclusive environment for all our members. I have listened carefully to the Standing Committee’s concerns at the last meeting and answered all questions asked of me in full. 

“My focus now is on ensuring the smooth and responsible running of the remainder of term – and I intend to see that through.”

1...8910...2,510Page 9 of 2,510

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