The University of Oxford has not been following the trend of increasing numbers of female professors employed in British universities, which rose by 4% last year.

The proportion of women holding the title of professor at Oxford stands at only 9.4% (correct as of 2010). Across the UK women still only make up 20% of those in senior positions.

A particular disparity is apparent in the number of women employed as professors of science. Only 3.6% of Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences professorships were held by women, and only 7.3% of those for Medical Science. The proportion of female professors in the departments of Social Sciences and Humanities, though higher, at approximately 13%, is still well below the national average.

Women are better represented in other academic positions at Oxford, comprising, for example, over a quarter of the lecturers in the university.

Dr Mark Griffith, Senior Tutor at New College, rejected the notion of sexist bias at Oxford, highlighting the increasing commitment of the university to gender equality in the last forty years. He told Cherwell, “In my time Oxford has changed a very great deal. When I was an undergraduate at Wadham in the late 1970s only five Colleges were mixed and the preponderance of them entirely male.”

He added,  “It’s taking time for women to percolate upwards to become professors, who tend to be appointed later in their careers. I think now that a majority of the academics in some arts faculties are women. I don’t detect any bias here – and it would be oddly selective if there were”.

When questioned, students were equally sceptical about Oxford’s dearth of female academics. Classics student Josephine Rabinowitz commented, “As has recently been made common knowledge by that great purveyor of modern feminism, ‘Who run the world? Girls’. Beyoncé was on to something. I for one have seen no evidence to the contrary at Oxford.’

Dom Foord, a first-year at New College, said he was similarly unaware of any discrimination, estimating the number of female academics in his department to be about a third. He commented, “As a mathematician, it’s difficult to tell if there are more women or men. I spend far too much time looking at my shoes to notice”.

Applications to Oxford for study beginning in 2012 have remained similar to those for 2011, despite a drop of almost 8 per cent in university applications across the country.

According to data released in December, before the final deadline for most UK higher education institutions, the amount of UK students applying to university has fallen by 7.6%, with 23,228 fewer people applying.

OUSU President Martha McKenzie commented, “it is incredibly likely that the increase in tuition fees has contributed to this deterrent effect, however this is partly because applications spiked so significantly in 2010. The extreme pressure to apply before the new funding climate has eased.”

Applications to Oxbridge however, have remained relatively stable. A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said that they had not published the exact figures for the number of applicants they received this year, but that the number of applicants has stayed “roughly the same”.

When asked why Oxford has managed to retain its share of applications, a spokesperson told Cherwell “Oxford will continue to work tirelessly to maintain its excellence in research and teaching, and make sure it is a very attractive option to students around the world.

“We continue to receive around five applications from extremely bright students for every undergraduate place.”

Lincoln student, Nathan Akehurst, said, “applications have dropped as a direct result of the raised fees; the correlation is too great to assume otherwise.” He added that “Oxford’s retention rate is due to its perceived prestige; people still feel it is “value for money” to be here, whereas they would not necessarily be willing to pay £9k/pa for a university lower down the league tables.”

Second year Classics and English student Ben Hudson agreed, saying that “the prospect of paying nine thousand pounds a year for tuition, plus ever-increasing living costs and limited loans has, as predicted, put off the poorest students from applying after all, while the richer demographic who tend to apply to top-rank universities are unaffected.”

However, a spokesperson for the University of Oxford defended the university’s approach to the fee increase, saying “Oxford continues to work hard to ensure that all those with the potential to succeed apply – regardless of background,” adding that “Oxford has the most generous financial support for the lowest-income students of any university in the country.’

The Student Union at Wadham has voted to lobby college to abolish Meat-Free Mondays.

Since 2010 only vegetarian dinners have been available in the Wadham dining hall on Monday evenings. This week the SU voted by a slender majority of 44 to 39 to withdraw their support.

Wadhamite Tristan Dobson, who proposed the motion, explained to the SU that attempts to improve the standard of the college’s food had failed. He linked this to the high proportion of vegetarian meals in hall, emphasising that this was not just a “lad-attack” on Wadham.

Dobson further argued that the supposed environmental benefit of Meat-Free Mondays was misleading. He suggested that vegetables were often sourced from providers further afield than meat suppliers.

The motion also noted that other colleges, including Christ Church, New College and University College, had previously dropped similar policies.

However other students described the motion as “vague” and suggested that the environmental concern was merely a “smokescreen.” Several students pointed out that Meat-Free Mondays only affected one meal each week. One student added, “Those in support of the motion did not give any evidence or statistics in their arguments, and they did not seem to have a problem with that.” They described the motion as a “farce.”

Students supporting the motion asserted people’s rights to eat meat. One student objected, however, that meat was not a fundamental right as many universities do not even cater for their students.

There was also anger that the Wadham football team mailing list had been used to encourage non-regular SU members to attend the meeting. This email stated, “Lads: TODAY AT 4 PM, I’m afraid to say, the vegan rainbow cake-loving wankers are gonna be out in force!! We need EVERYONE to come to the meeting today, as if it doesn’t pass now we’re gonna [be] stuck playing find-the-cashew-nut in our shit veggie meals every Monday!”

One Wadham student responded, “It’s sad that Wadham’s reputation as a friendly college is being compromised. We’re known for being inclusive.” She interpreted the reference to “vegan rainbow cake-loving wankers” as a reference to one JCR member.

English student Barbara Speed stated, “The whole thing seems to have been blown out of proportion – it should be about what the majority of students want to eat, not a war between two groups of students.”

The Student Union Committee must now take the request to college staff, with whom the decision rests.

An increasing number of students nationally are making official complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the universities’ official ‘watchdog,’ if they fail to obtain either a first or a 2:1.

The Oxford University Proctors received 124 complaints this year from Oxford students. 105 were related to University Examinations, which represents just 0.5% of Oxford students. Only 38 of these complaints were either wholly or partly upheld by the Proctors.

Despite the national rise in the number of complaints, only 6% were justified by the OIA. Before launching an official complaint, students are required to “exhaust the internal appeals procedures” of their own university.

Universities Secretary David Willetts dismissed the rising number of complaints, commenting that students are “paying for higher education, not paying for a degree.” He added, “One of the increasing areas of complaints is students saying, ‘I’ve got a 2:2 when I should have got a 2:1 – they’ve let me down’.”

According to survey ‘The Student Barometer’, which encompasses over 200 universities worldwide, 58% of Oxford students agreed with the statement “marking schemes and examination conventions help me understanding what Examiners are looking for in final examinations.’ This compares to 33% of students in Russell Group universities and 47% of students at Cambridge. 43% of Oxford students do not agree that “the criteria used in marking have been clear in advance.”

Adam Mackinnon, a biologist, commented, “I’ve seen the mark scheme but it does seem rather subjective.”

A maths student at St. Anne’s stated, “I’ve not seen the mark scheme. Then again I got 85% in my collections so I’m not sure it matters.”

Oxford University is building a new health centre in Jericho, set to open in May 2012. This new ‘super surgery’ forms a part of the university’s £11.5m redevelopment of the old Radcliffe Infirmary and will serve more than 13,500 patients.

The three-storey building will provide facilities on a scale unprecedented in the area. Three surgeries and up to 12 GPs will move into the ground floor; the site will accordingly provide a clinic room dedicated to child health and additional clinic rooms, allowing for more appointments. Previously unavailable health services – such as training, educating, and consultant services – will also be made available.

Relocating to the top floor is Oxford’s Department of Public Health Care, as well as the university’s Press Offices. The Press Office declined from commenting on their own move, however they did give an update on the building works. Maria Coyle told the Cherwell that: ‘Work is well under way on the new local health centre. External brickwork and scaffolding has started. The steelwork for the lightwell roof has been installed.’

She also discussed the exact location of the new health centre; it ‘will be situated in the top left hand corner of the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter site, opposite the entrances to Cardigan Street and Jericho Street. Pedestrians will be able to access the health centre…from Walton Street.’

However the Cherwell has uncovered a mixed reaction to the development within the Jericho Community. Whilst Adrian Arbib from the Jericho Community Association stated that the Association’s official position was one of pleasure, speaking in his capacity as a personal citizen his view differed slightly. Although he recognised that the new centre is due to open soon, he was concerned by the fact that they had already lost ‘a significant facility in Jericho with the loss of the previous hospital facilities that were there.’

He also saw the health centre as disproportionate to the University’s overall gains in the area, saying the hospital was ‘small beer really in comparison to the massive site that the university has gained.’

There might be negative consequences for daily activities in Jericho; he also worries about potential ‘traffic, football and parking relating to, what is in a large part, a residential street and area.’ He believes these anxieties to be ‘common to quite a few people in Jericho.’

After a review of this year’s A-level achievements, the A* is being introduced into the University of Oxford’s entrance requirements for 15 degree courses from 2012 entry.

The subjects include Chemistry, Engineering Science and Physics. Mathematics, Mathematics and Philosophy, and Mathematics and Statistics will require two A*s, with the A*s required in Mathematics and Further Mathematics if taken. A full list of courses asking for at least one A* is listed on the University’s website.

The A* was introduced in 2010, after several universities claimed that it was becoming difficult to distinguish between several candidates receiving the top grade. 8% of A-level entries received the A* mark in its first year.

Oxford University initially resisted including the A* in their requirements. In a note sent out when Oxford announced its change in policy, the University stated that, ‘Oxford’s policy on the A* grade was to wait two years as teachers indicated that they were uncertain about predicting who would get the new grade.

‘It is now clear that many students in the sciences who take A levels get the A* grade, and that it would be reasonable to ask for A* in many science and math courses. In addition, by 2012 Oxford believes teachers will have two years of running the syllabus and will be familiar with content and student performance, and therefore be able to predict those getting the A* with more confidence.’

Many other universities across the country, including Cambridge, University College London, and Imperial are already asking for the A* for some courses. Now Nottingham and York universities are also introducing the A* grade for the first time.

A-Level results from August 2011 indicated that the number of A*s achieved by students at private schools was 50% higher than for state grammar schools. The University rejected claims that the decision to postpone introducing the A* was driven by state / independent student numbers.

Reacting to the story, Nathan Akehurst, Lincoln student and a member of the Socialist Workers’ Party, referred to the fact that of 100 offer-holders from ‘flagged’, i.e. disadvantaged, backgrounds, 50 did not meet their grades.

He commented, ‘The A* introduction is regressive, and also destroys the potential applications of those who may progress throughout Year 13. Oxford is meant to level the playing field through innovative aptitude tests and interviews; this is a step in the wrong direction in the context of a vastly and increasingly unequal education system that will only compound the already grim situation for UK universities.’

Basil Vincent, a second year Historian and Keble JCR President, added ‘given the amount of aptitude tests that Oxford set for admissions, I don’t see how it’s necessary. What the admissions department should be focusing on is the Fonding and Bridging Provision that OUSU are highlighting at the moment’.

However, Oxford University pointed out that ‘A-level grades are far from the only selection criteria for Oxford. Academic ability and potential are assessed through a range of measures: details provided through the UCAS application, such as attained grades (including GCSEs), the personal statement, predicted grades and academic reference, then also aptitude tests for around 85% of applicants and written work in some subjects. Where candidates are shortlisted, their performance at interview is also taken into account.’

New College Oxford has succeeded in trademarking its name in response to the establishment of the New College of the Humanities, the ‘university college’ set to open its doors in autumn 2012.

The dispute began in the summer, when New College Oxford became worried that students might think they had “set up an offshoot in London”. The application to trademark their name was submitted after that of the New College of the Humanities (NCH), but was accepted just before Christmas.

The trademark protects the use of the name ‘New College Oxford’ and prevents other institutions using it for other purposes. The term ‘New College’ is too broad to be trademarked, and there already exist other ‘New Colleges’ such as those in Durham and Swindon.

The application of the NCH, although submitted in May 2011, was blocked by the Intellectual Property Office, though not formally rejected. The NCH, however, said that it was re-applying, and this time was “confident of success” despite the initial setback.

A spokesman from New College Oxford explained that the college had done “what it reasonably could and should do” and has “laid down a marker” to protect its name.

NCH says that “it was not a surprise that their trademark application was successful” and that it does not believe that “there will be any confusion between ourselves and New College Oxford” partly based on the fact that New College Oxford offers sciences as well as humanities. Yet New College Oxford still felt prompted to apply for a comprehensive trademark, something which the University as a whole has but that few colleges do.

The NCH, based in Bloomsbury, London, said it was not considering changing its name in order to attain a trademark, and that it believes that reapplication will be successful because “the idea has now been launched, and awareness is increasing, and the institution will be open with a full cohort of students by the time we reapply”.

The NCH is set to charge £18,000 a year, a figure which caused rancour and incredulity when announced, especially given the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the increase in tuition fees. It also does not officially have university or university college status, though it refers to itself as a ‘university college’ on its website. It is to prepare students for degrees from the University of London as well as “the unique New College of the Humanities Diploma”. However one university official wondered whether UCL would wish to grant “a cuckoo in the nest” any buildings, given that they would be in direct competition.

Students at New College Oxford were dismissive of any threat posed by the NCH with Freddie Fulton, a student at New College claiming “I’m not overly fussed about the name” and JCR President Oscar Lee believing that New College Oxford already had an “excellent reputation” and that greater focus should be given “to improve the college’s image for access purposes rather than worrying about competition from this new organisation”.

Another student also did not object to NCH in principal and welcomed the high fees, saying “It is a lot of money, but if people are willing to pay for it then go for it” and that “people will only pay for it if they think it is worth it, and no harm done at all, especially given the literally hundreds of alternatives that school leavers are presented with”.

The St Hugh’s Dean has contacted members of the college’s drinking society, The Black Cygnets, condemning their activities.The society is known for its controversial “fox hunt” event, which invite selected female students to dress as “foxes” and be chased by members of the society.

Professor Peter Mitchell sent an email describing such events as “chauvinist” and “sexist,” stating that “the nature of some of the events [The Black Cygnets] sponsors are incompatible with the good name of St Hugh’s College.”

He pointed out that the organisation had been subject to a decanal ban since 2008.

Prof Mitchell continued to explain that any future events organised by the Black Cygnets will be met with disciplinary action, adding, “Should any event undertaken by the Black Cygnets Society (in whatever guise) beyond the property of the College result in a complaint from any member of the public or the police to the College then the individuals concerned will also likely find themselves in breach of [the college’s disciplinary code].”

The email was sent to all students believed to be involved in the Cygnets as well as all those who were invited to “an unauthorised event in the College Bar on the evening of November 11th 2011.”

One St Hugh’s source told Cherwell that this event was indeed a “fox hunt” which reportedly resulted in “the President being banned from the bar and incurring a £200 fine.”

One student disagreed with the Dean’s analysis of the supposed “sexist” events organised by the society, commenting, “The females and males invited on the recent “Fox Hunt” were simply the ones who we know enjoy a few drinks and a good night out – nothing more than that.”

Mitchell stated that the email was intended to remind students of the decanal ban already in place.

One society member noted, “The college seems to have a problem with the Cygnets because of decanal trouble that occurred in 2008 – before most of the current Cygnets had even matriculated.”

Another undergraduate added, “I think the ban no longer serves any purpose, as the current members of the society were not even at St Hugh’s when the previous bad behaviour took place, and therefore it seems strange to punish them for the conduct of their predecessors.”

One Hugh’s student who had attended a “fox hunt” in the past said, “I don’t think the email was fair at all, but I’m not altogether surprised as the St Hugh’s disciplinary system seems to be getting more and more ridiculous every term.”

Hugh’s JCR Vice-President, Andrew Wilson noted, “I’m glad to say I’ve never had any involvement with the Cygnets or the “fox-hunt”. The Black Cygnets are neither associated with nor supported by the Hugh’s JCR.”

Dean Professor Mitchell declined Cherwell’s invitation to comment.

A new report has recommended that Oxford radically changes its approach towards socially disadvantaged applicants.

For the last few years Oxford has been flagging applicants from non-traditional backgrounds and tracing their progress through the system. Of the 500 flagged candidates from 2010, 100 received offers. However 50 failed to meet the necessary grades and 15 rejected their place.

The report, which has been given OUSU’s support, suggests that these two problems could be tackled by bridging provisions and foundation provisions. The former is aimed at supporting potential applicants who are still at secondary school, through the use of mentors. The second proposed solution suggests Oxford could attempt to fix problems of poor education, socio-economic deprivation and the social care system by introducing a foundation course.

This course could be a short residential study period or a year-long more traditional foundation scheme. It would provide an entry route into undergraduate courses for students with potential to study at undergraduate level who might not meet grade requirements, bringing them up to the necessary level.

Hannah Cusworth, OUSU’s Access Officer, stated her support for the motion, commenting, “As well as being a moral imperative for Oxford to ensure that disadvantaged students have a fair chance of making their offer, it is key we don’t lose potential students from non-traditional backgrounds who could go on to be great students.”

JCR President of Univ, Daniel Tomlinson, added, “Bridging support is a really good idea. It’s a way of making candidates from non-traditional backgrounds feel that Oxford wants them.”

The report was created by a working group and received some support from Admissions Officers last Michaelmas, although some concerns about logistics were expressed. OUSU supported the motion at its meeting last week, and JCR Executives and other representatives will be consulted early this term.”

If the proposal is implemented, it could help the university meet its targets for including students from non-traditional backgrounds. This is a condition of the agreement with the Office for Fair Access which accepted Oxford University raising their fee level to £9,000. Around 150 more flagged students must become Oxford undergraduates by 2016

The Curators of the Bodleian Libraries are undergoing consultations with the History department over plans to close the History Faculty Library.

The proposal, if successful, would see the entire contents and services of the History Faculty Library moved from its current location on Broad Street to the main Bodleian site in time for the start of the next academic year.The new plan comes as previous moves to relocate the Library to the Radcliffe Observatory site have undergone “temporary suspension.”

The consultation process officially began on Monday when Curators of the University Libraries endorsed the proposal in principle. The motion is now being put to members of the History Faculty with staff being asked to submit their comments by Friday 27th and an “extraordinary meeting” of committee will then take place next week. The results of this process will be reviewed, and the final decision made by Curators in their 8th week meeting.

Cherwell’s source from within the consultation process expressed grievances that “the History Faculty hasn’t even informed students of the proposal, let alone discussed it with us. We’re told that the university values our opinions and believes in transparency, but that’s simply not the case here.”

She added, “This is why we felt we had to go to the press.”

The organisers have admitted that “the timing is stunningly tight” and added that although “the velocity of all this is regrettable, there is something to be said for a short and focussed discussion.”

In an official statement on behalf of the Bodleian libraries, Jonathan Wood told Cherwell, “The proposal reflects the strategic vision of the Bodleian Libraries to provide improved services through the integration and consolidation of a number of its satellite libraries, thereby reducing costs to Divisions and enabling improved services, such as longer hours of operation.”

He added, “the savings achieved by the relocation of the history collections to the Bodleian would free up resources for the purchase of additional books, journals, and databases and for the support of Sunday hours in both the Radcliffe Camera and Old Bodleian Library.”

The official report sent to members of the History Faculty claimed that the change would bring many benefits to both students and staff including “unity of place, more circulation, more hours and more money.” It explained that “moving into the Old Bodleian would mean a 75K per year reduction in space charges, some of which could be ploughed back directly into the HFL acquisitions budget.”

However, not everyone is happy with the idea. One History graduate student commented, “The proposal has serious flaws, not least that there will be no room for staff offices or researchers in the new library, and that disabled access is currently no better at the Radcliffe Camera than at the Old Indian Institute.”

She continued, “Far worse, however, is the way in which the consultation process has been carried out. The role of the Martin School is deeply concerning. They’ve offered to cover the costs if the History Faculty Library moves out before September 2012, which has sped up the process. Why is policy being dictated by the whims of donors rather than the needs of students?”

The Oxford Martin School, which describes itself as “an interdisciplinary research initiative addressing key global future challenges”, has expressed its desire to take over the Oxford Indian Institute and has offered a substantial financial inducement to facilitate the move providing this takes place before September 2012.

Conrad Leyser, Chair of the History Committee for Library Provision, and Isabel Holowaty, the Bodleian’s History Librarian issued a joint statement defending the proposal, saying, “One of the main benefits of the proposed move is that it would mean longer opening hours for the History Faculty Library, including hours at weekends. This is something History students have been wanting for years: now we have a chance of making it happen.”

They added, “The main message we want to send out to students is that they should get in touch with their Library representatives.”

Second year Univ historian, Joe Kelly, argued that students should have been consulted earlier and added, “I’m against the prospective move because I find the size and grandeur of the Rad Cam intimidating.”

The collections of other subjects currently situated at the main Bodleian site will also be affected with, for example, English and Theology reference material being moved from the Lower Camera to the main level of the Upper Camera while the History teaching collection may move downstairs.

St Anne’s finalist Robin McGhee expressed particular opposition to this aspect of the change, commenting, “The potential move of History books from their rightful place at the top of the RadCam is an act of outrageous contempt by the University for History and it should be ashamed of it.”

The spokesperson for the Bodleian libraries declared that they do not anticipate any members of staff being made redundant as a result of this proposal.