According to Times Higher Education’s Global University Employability Ranking 2016, Oxford University are the second best university in the UK “for delivering work-ready graduates”. The California Institute of Technology topped the Employability Ranking, despite losing out to Oxford in Times Higher Education’s September ranking of the world’s top universities.

THE’s report found that the most prestigious universities were also considered to be the best at producing employment-ready graduates, with California Institute of Technology ranking first, followed by MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, and Stanford. Oxford placed seventh worldwide, narrowly losing out to Yale University.

The data which went into the report was gathered from respondents in 20 countries and consisted of management-level recruiters and managing directors of international firms.

Nine other universities from the UK placed in the top 100, including Imperial College London (16), King’s College London (23), and the University of Manchester (24). The US had the most universities on the list, occupying 37 spots of of the top 100 and six of the top ten.

The Technical University of Munich and the University of Tokyo were the only two non-US or UK universities to rank in the top ten.

John Maier, a second year Balliol PPEist, said, “This is a bitter pill to swallow. My hopes and dreams of being a corporate sellout are slipping away. I might have to do an MPhil, then DPhil, then maybe another DPhil after all.”

Protesters gathered outside the Oxford Union as Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, arrived to speak tonight.

The protest, which was organised by Oxford Migrant Solidarity and OUSU LGBTQ Campain with the support of Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) and It Happens Here, amassed a crowd of more than 60 protesters.

They gathered outside the Union whilst members queued up outside to listen to the talk. Among their chants were “This is free speech, that is a platform”, “Oxford Union, shame on you” and “Black Lives Matter”.

Chants continued once the talk had started, with protesters shouting “Get up, walk out”. Their chants could be heard from inside the Union chamber.

Lewandowski left the Trump campaign in June 2016, after having worked there for over a year, amid allegations he was fired, although Mr. Trump’s son Donald Jr. described the split as “amicable”. He was replaced by chief strategist Paul Manafort. His resignations followed allegations that he had forcefully grabbed a journalist, Michelle Fields.

The OUSU LGBTQ campaign said in a statement, “The LGBTQ Campaign stands in solidarity with all LGBTQ people, people of colour, Muslims, migrants and refugees, disabled people, women and anyone who fears hardship or violence under a Trump presidency. We strongly condemn the normalisation of bigotry and the legitimisation of those complicit in fascism and white supremacy, including Corey Lewandowski. There can be no neutrality in the face of fascism; by hosting Lewandowski, the Oxford Union is complicit in this legitimisation.”

Similarly, a spokesperson for Oxford Migrant Solidarity commented, “Oxford Migrant Solidarity recognizes that there can be no free speech for people living under threat of deportation, harassment, or assault. There can be no free speech for a student in a classroom when other students chant “build the wall” at them. Oxford Migrant Solidarity stands in support of those individuals whose voices are not heard on national television, those who do not receive invitations to speak at the Oxford Union.”

It Happens Here, a sexual violence awareness group in Oxford said in a statement, “As an anti-sexual violence campaign, It Happens Here vehemently opposes the Union’s invitation to Corey Lewandowski, who defended Trump when he bragged about sexual assault. Sexual violence is not a joke; sexual violence is not something that we should accept and normalise in this way; sexual violence happens every day and we must visibly and resolutely stand against it, and anyone who trivialises its severity.”

Cherwell spoke to a number of students both queueing and protesting outside of the Union. Sean O’Neill, OULC’s Press Officer who was protesting outside the Union building, told Cherwell, “The most effective way to oppose this movement and all of its variants in the USA and here is to make sure that it’s not normalised. We stand in solidarity with all who this victory has affected and will go on to affect.”

Nathan Wragg, a PPEist at Pembroke who was queuing to hear Lewandowski speak, commented, “I think that Trump’s election is probably one of the most monumental political events of my life. Lewandowski is the first guy from Trump’s real inner circle to speak in Oxford following his election, which is pretty massive to be honest.”

“I think it’s great that there’s a protest here and protesting against platforming is a great idea, but I do not think this is a platform so to speak. The vast majority in the room will be massively against him. I am interested to see how he reacts to some quite hostile questions.”

Nathan Chael, a student in Oxford on exchange from Stanford University, said, “From a neutral perspective of political analysis I think the talk could allow interesting insight into the psychology of the Trump campaign and the current American electorate, and I’m obviously in support of free speech. But as someone still angry and hurting after the election, I’m also fully supportive of those choosing to protest Lewandowski’s talk.

“His campaign’s practices were utterly repugnant, and I think I’d feel disgusted to sit in the same room with him and listen to him talk about how Trump pulled it off this soon after it happened.”

This is by no means the first incident of a protest against platforming outside of the Union. In February 2015 around 400 demonstrators took part in a protest against the French Front National’s leader Marine Le Pen’s speech at the Union, condemning her political views as fascist, anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, and Islamophobic. The protestors opposing Lewandowski used many of the same chants.

The event highlights the controversy surrounding no-platforming at Oxford University. Robert Harris, former president of the Oxford Union, recently commented independently on the Union’s Facebook event, “The argument about whether Lewandowski should be hosted by the Oxford Union most likely comes down to the classic disagreement about the extent [and] limits to free speech. If this is true, then it seems implausible that either ‘side’ is going to be able to persuade the other regarding Lewandowski’s particular invitation – both viewpoints are based on broad, deep-held, ideological beliefs.”

The Oxford Union Society has been contacted for comment.

Oxford Dictionaries has announced “post-truth” is its 2016 international word of the year. Reflecting the widespread impact of the US election and the Brexit debate, both the US and UK dictionaries chose the term.

Defined as an adjective “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”, use of the term has increased by around 2,000% in 2016. “Post-truth” was chosen ahead of a shortlist including other political terms, such as “Brexiteer” and “alt-right”, and cultural alternatives, such as “coulroophobia” (the fear of clowns) and “hygge”.

According to Oxford Dictionaries, the term ” post-truth” was first used in an essay by playwright Steve Tesich in a 1992 edition of Nation magazine. Commenting on the Iran-Contra affair and the Persian Gulf war, Tesich noted that “we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world”.

Casper Grathwohl, President of Oxford Dictionaries, commented, “Fuelled by the rise of social media as a news source and a growing distrust of facts offered up by the establishment, post-truth as a concept has been finding its linguistic footing for some time.
“We first saw the frequency really spike this year in June with buzz over the Brexit vote and again in July when Donald Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination.
“Given that usage of the term hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, I wouldn’t be surprised if post-truth becomes one of the defining words of our time.”

“Post-truth” has been added to OxfordDictionaries.com, while editors will analyse its ongoing usage to see whether it will be included in future editions of the Oxford English Dictionary.

To see Oxford Dictionaries’ full reasoning and shortlist, click here.

New regulations have been adopted which will impose commoner’s gowns for all candidates at viva exams, regardless of whether they own a scholar’s gown.

The Proctors approved of the demands made in the Oxford University Society of Biomedical Sciences’ petition this week, making commoner’s gowns compulsory.

Science students including medics, biochemists and biologists as well as some MsC and DPhil students must attend viva exams in the final year of their course. They consist of a presentation of a research project in front of a jury, followed by questions, and can last up to six hours in some cases.

In previous years, undergraduates who had both types of academic dress could choose which one to wear, leading to potential unconscious bias from the examiners.

Concerns were raised in a Medicine examiner’s report in 2005, advising the candidates not to wear subfusc to their oral exams. Previous attempts were also made at solving the problem by abolishing gowns at vivas, a solution which was made impossible after students voted to keep the academic dress at OUSU’s referendum.

A petition to limit the risk of prejudice was launched in April 2016 under the initiative of Emily Gowers, Vice-President of OUSBMS. Attracting over 300 signatories in the first two days, the petition was backed by LMH, St Hugh’s, Balliol, St John’s and Teddy Hall JCRs.

With a final count of 553 signatures, the petition’s description stated, “Considering the efforts that Oxford makes to ensure that written exams are unbiased (e.g. candidate numbers), it seems ridiculous that during a viva the examiner has a full view of your academic history – and you’re wearing it!”

In addition to giving candidates wearing a scholar’s gown the benefit of the doubt, the petition argued that examiners were more likely to ask them difficult questions, resulting in a two-way disadvantage.

Some signatories suggested that the same should be applied to language orals.

The announcement of the Proctor’s decision was welcomed by OUSBMS president Joy Hodkinson. She commented, “There remain a multitude of ways in which examiners may be unconsciously biased in Viva Examinations, for instance, with regard to race, gender or regional accents.

“Despite this, I believe this change represents significant progress, particularly in relation to the University responding to the voices of the student body. Hopefully, the success of OUSBMS’s campaign will encourage students to pursue analogous initiatives relating to issues of equality in the future.”

Josh Newman, a recently graduated scientist and petition signatory, told Cherwell, “It’s so great to see what is often considered an archaic institution adapting it’s ways to ensure that all exams are fair and equal to all, regardless of past exam performance.”

He added, “Having sat my viva last year, it was plain to see how your gown could affect things – wearing my scholar’s gown, I was worried about whether this would change how my examiners treated me.”

In his message of support to the campaign in April, Newman addressed its opposition. “Yes, the scholar system is in place to reward individuals who have performed well, and the ability to wear a scholar’s gown is a perk of that – however, it is fundamentally not the case that such a system should have the ability to influence the outcome of future exams.

“As a scholar myself, I do agree with having the choice to wear your scholars gown to exams – it’s a personal choice. But as soon as that personal choice has the capability of impacting either your or somebody else’s grade undeservedly, then there is a problem.”