177 Oxford academics have signed a motion “to communicate to the Government that the University of Oxford has no confidence in the policies of the Minister for Higher Education”. They join students in calling for the University to formally “express dissatisfaction” with government higher education policy.

The motion, submitted on Monday morning, will be debated in Congregation (Oxford’s ‘parliament of dons’ and the legislative body of the University) for amendments in 6th week and then 8th week for the resolution itself.

Colleges have been seeking mandates to lobby Congregation members to support the resolution, following the lead of Andrew Hood, New College JCR President, who called for the vote of no confidence in a speech to the Congregation last week.

Hood commented, “If the public see that the professionals concerned are not behind the Government’s plans they may be forced to reconsider”.

On Sunday evening, St John’s JCR unanimously passed a motion of “No Confidence in the Minister of Higher Education”.

David Messling, John’s JCR President said, “It’s really exciting that this resolution is coming from the academics, making it harder to pass off as just a student stunt.”

In an email sent out to St Catz students, JCR president Aidan Clifford asked students to “plead with your tutors to stand with us against this Government’s Higher Education policies, and get them to sign up!”

Bernard Sufrin, of the Oxford University Campaign for Higher Education (OUCHE!), which includes members of Congregation, commented, “It would be irresponsible of the sovereign body of Oxford – one of only two University sovereign bodies that can speak along the lines of this motion – to keep quiet about the very damaging consequences of the proposed changes to the HE funding arrangements.

“People who signed the motion have said that last week’s on-again, off-again policy initiatives decreased their – already meager – confidence in the HE policies of the Minister to vanishing point.

“When policy is made and then unmade within a day, there is a case for saying that those responsible for the policy-making are losing their grip. When this happens twice in three days, people can be forgiven for thinking that the grip has been lost completely”.

The level of support for the motion being put to Congregation has been described by OUCHE! members as “huge” and “unprecedented”, with the 177 signatures being collected in 3 days, 2 of which were at the weekend.

Those who met and discussed it were reportedly “unanimous about its wording”, “from a very wide range of academic disciplines” and “of all political persuasions”.

An OUSU press release stated that such a motion “is likely to be seen as following in the footsteps of the recent Nurses’ vote of no confidence in Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, which has dented the Government’s plans for a radical overhaul of the NHS”.

OUSU VP for Access and Academic Affairs, Alex Bulfin said, “I think for Oxford to step to the front of the debate on the future of higher education in this manner can only be a positive move. No matter your political stance, few can argue that the Government’s policy on higher education is not confused and contradictory, at best”.

Jack Andrews, a Mansfield first-year, commented that, “In the past I’ve always had to defend the Conservative’s actions to those around me”, yet the past “few weeks of terrible policy suggestions and embarrassing backtracking [show that] Willetts isn’t the right man (scapegoat or not) to lead Universities in the future”.

Co-chair of Oxford University Liberal Democrats, James King, placed much of the blame over “badly mishandled” universities policy on Mr Willetts, saying, “I don’t think that there are many Liberal Democrats who would be unhappy if he left the government. The fact that Oxford – one of the universities who might theoretically have gained most from reforms to funding – could well call for his head is frankly damning.”

However, King said, “We do not think that either this motion alone or other similar ones from other universities will affect the future of the Coalition, which the majority of Liberal Democrats continue to support.”

Lincoln Hill, Chair of Oxford University Labour Club, observed, “Even if such a motion were passed by other universities, only the Government’s public image, not their policy, would change.

“They are operating from Thatcher’s rulebook and have made up their minds to persevere through present unpopularity on all fronts until Mr. Osborne can hand out tax cuts”.

However, responses from various colleges show that the momentum behind the motion is not entirely widespread.

Students at Pembroke and St Hugh’s were not aware of the motion at all, while Balliol’s JCR president Stephen Dempsey told Cherwell that they were deliberately not canvassing opinion as the nature of topic is “very diversified” and so “do not feel comfortable in support or dissent”.

Nick Hyett, a second year PPEist at Christ Church, called the motion “a slightly extreme response”.

He added that there were, “some u-turns yes, but this surely is evidence that the government is listening and responding… [the] whole universities policy is not ridiculous – tutition fees are more or less fair”.

When Cherwell contacted Willetts a department spokesperson commented, “Under our policy, there are no upfront fees and graduates don’t make any repayments until they are in well-paid employment.

“There is a more generous maintenance package than now, as well as the National Scholarship Programme targeting prospective students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Oxford University has declined to comment at this stage.

An investigation by Cherwell has uncovered vast discrepancies between decanal punishments at different colleges.

Fines levied for offences in recent years range from an average of £62 per year at St Catz to a colossal £2,447 at St Edmund Hall.

The figures from the sample of colleges which replied to Cherwell’s Freedom of Information request suggest that cumulatively, undergraduate colleges across the University are likely to collect around £30,000 in fines over the current academic year.

By far the largest proportion of punishments relate to behavioural offences and setting off fire alarms.

University College’s records showed some particularly unexpected misdemeanours, such as a student who was punished in 2006 for having a bale of hay in their room.

The fine imposed was “£20 plus £58.07 for cleaning”. Elsewhere, a student received a warning for keeping “chickens in student accommodation”.

Fines for ICT misconduct are particularly steep, with Univ fining up to £200 a time for “the use of P2P software on the University network”, and charges related to file sharing accounting for 27% of the total amount raised in fines by Jesus since 2008.

Univ also gave out three warnings to different students for “improper comments” on the Facebook group, “Univ Incoming Class 2010”.

Illicit room parties also often result in a depleted bank balance or even an educational course. In February 2009, an “illegal party, excessive noise and smoking” resulted in one student from Univ being instructed to attend a “seminar with fire safety officer” and do “community service in the form of five sessions cleaning up the area around the recycling and rubbish bins outside the kitchen/works department.”

‘A student received a warning from the Dean for loud sex’

The student in question was told, “Specifically, you will next week report to the Hall Manager in time to obtain rubber gloves and aprons and begin cleaning at 8am. You will absolve this task for 5 days (Monday to Friday inclusive).”

Students looking forward to the tradition of “trashing” following exams this summer should also beware of severe penalties. Records showed that this can carry heavy fines, with some colleges regularly imposing £200 charges on students who flout the rules.

In an apparently unique case, one St Anne’s student reported receiving a warning from the Dean for “having really loud sex and trashing my room”.

Teddy Hall, the highest-grossing college of those surveyed admitted, “punishments are generally in the form of fines.”

The current Teddy Hall Dean, Professor Robert Whittaker, commented that, “The level of the figures may perhaps reflect inclusion of reparation costs alongside fines in the strict sense.”

He said, “Fines (in the broad sense, i.e. charges) go towards the costs incurred as a result of the action that resulted in the fine (e.g. replacing damaged fittings) and otherwise towards welfare.

“Welfare and disciplinary provision and issues are interrelated, and as Dean I am keen to reflect on issues that arise and to work with the JCR and MCR to find ways to avoid repetition of problems and to ensure a responsive welfare system within the college.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%3318%%[/mm-hide-text]

Graphics: Nick Taylor

Mary Kerr, Bursar of St. Hugh’s, which has been criticised in the past for its hefty financial penalties, told Cherwell, “We do not impose community service or other similar forms of punishment”.

At other colleges however, a policy of community service is popular. St Hilda’s said of their decanal system, “There is a community service element in place which is always preferable to monetary fines.”

Figures for St Catz show an average of 46 hours of community service a year given out as punishment since 2005. In a single year, 2005-06, 121 hours were doled out.

As a result, income from fines are low, although the Home Bursar notes that, “Administrative charges (connected with car-parking without permit, computer network misuse, damage to property) are not recorded, unless punitive.”

Offences at Catz include “misuse” of the car park, warranting 20 hours of community service, and “pranking another student”, which earned the culprit temporary exclusion from the bar.

Other incidents brought harsher consequences; in 2007, two students were caught “throwing eggs in residence” and, as repeat offenders, were given “10 hours community service, barred from Entz [and] denied privilege of choosing a room in the following year”.

Some students have said they would rather their college adopted a similar system of community service. One first year, who was fined for misbehaviour at another college and for mess, commented, “The financial punishments are unfair and extreme.’

‘I asked to do community service or another form of punishment but this wasn’t allowed. There was no other option than to pay the £100 fine each time.”

But some see fines as beneficial. Clifford Webb, Merton’s Finance Bursar, emphasised that money raised from student punishments was put to use. He said, “The College retains the income from fines that are imposed in respect to damage to College property.

“All other fines, including fines of a purely disciplinary nature, are made available to the undergraduate common room and may be paid to charities nominated by them.”

‘Illicit room parties and excessive noise often result in fines’

Elsewhere, the money goes towards bursary funds. Peter Mitchell, St. Hugh’s Dean, explained that, “All decanal fines at St Hugh’s are directed into the funds available to the College for student hardship cases.”

Despite this justification, one St Hugh’s student who was fined £150 for mess and £150 for an accidentally smashed window said, “I would have rather done community service than paid a fine, because £300 for me affected me more substantially than it would have done someone in a more stable financial position.’

‘My money went to a hardship fund but now I’m £300 out of pocket I’m suffering hardship.”

He added, “The college tries to make it seem like an official procedure, but it seemed to me that similar offences produce varying punishments.”

Similar confusion about what consequences to expect for a single offence is also evident at other colleges.

A spokesperson for Worcester said that decanal responses ranged from, “requests to send letters of apology, cost of repairing damage, fines, community service and requirement to improve academic standards”.

Few colleges said that they had a standardised system of punishments for specific misdemeanours, although some, such as Brasenose, make exact figures available. BNC’s Student Handbook details the penalties their students should expect should they break the rules. For example “kindling of naked flames” carries a fine of £100.

Even when outlined, college decanal systems are often inconsistent with one another. While Brasenose students can expect a £100 fine for climbing on college buildings, at Jesus in the academic year 2009-10, a student was left £150 poorer for the same offence.

Nick Seaford, a St John’s student, was fined £50 for tampering with a fire alarm, whereas St. Catz records a punishment of “1 hour community service, suspended, for removing battery from room’s fire-alarm”. In another incident, a St Anne’s student only received a £30 suspended fine for “setting off the fire alarm by cooking in my room”.

Seaford, a first year, said he thought it was “reasonable” for colleges to respond to incidents in different ways. He said, “I think it’s fair enough … it depends on the atmosphere and the ethos of the college”.

This is true of Mansfield, whose “progressive, informal environment” and “relatively small student body” makes punitive action a last resort. Dr Eleftheriadis, Mansfield’s Dean, said, “When things get very wrong, which is very rare, a fine will be the appropriate response.’

‘But I have found that our students are always reasonable. I have very rarely been called to intervene.”

He added, “There is no ‘community service’ or other ‘forced labour’ form of punishment, nor indeed any form of coercion. I try to resolve issues through discussion with the parties involved and by encouraging those involved to apologise or otherwise make up for their mistakes.”

Exeter college have announced that rent will increase, adding controversy to OUSU president David Barclay’s hotly debated ‘rent-freeze’ motion.

The motion, which called for rents for undergraduates at Oxford colleges to remain the same this year in line with frozen student loans, was passed with a large majority in OUCU Council but opposed strongly by certain colleges such as Balliol.  Many JCR Presidents who voted in favour of the motion however, feel they are unable to implement it themselves due to the nature of the financial climate and some colleges are hiking up student costs regardless of students’ financial concerns.

It has been revealed that Exeter College has already proposed to increase rents next year by 5.01%, approximately 0.6% above the probable Van Noorden Index figure, an Oxford college costs specific inflation rate.  Even more worryingly for students, the college finance authorities hope to raise their fixed termly catering charge by 11.3%, bringing it up to £313 a term while also increasing other food prices by 8%. In theory, the catering charge covers the college’s fixed cost so students are charged a marginal price for each meal.  However, under these proposals, students would be paying £4.10 for one main course and either a starter or a pudding for dinner: far more than most other colleges, almost all of which do not have a catering charge.

Such large increases have been calculated to increase the costs of an average Exeter student living in by roughly £332 a year: almost 10% of the standard student loan.

One Exeter student who wished to remain anonymous called the propositions “pretty shocking” and said that the increases, at the current proposed rates, were “terrifyingly large”.

Chris Morgan, a first year Economics and Management student at Exeter told us, “There is an almost unanimous feeling that we have been hard done by with regards to the changes in the Battels, particularly since the charges at Exeter are already amongst the highest in Oxford. The general feeling is that we’re not getting anything more for our money and it seems like there are no grounds for such a large increase.”

A second year lawyer at Exeter, Gabriella Davis, said the increases were “obviously not ideal” and that, “hopefully the JCR Exec will be able to negotiate the charges down a bit because as they are I don’t think many of us will be able to manage very easily.”

When contacted, Exeter declined to comment on the rises.

While negotiators at Exeter have the unenviable challenge of fighting the war on prices on several fronts, other colleges facing rent increases are choosing to combat living costs as a whole in order to get the best all-round deal for their students.

Teddy Hall’s President, Josh Coulson, agreed that their rates would be increasing at a similar rate to Exeter’s saying, “The College has increased rents at RPI(X) for the past 15-20 years and preliminary conversations indicate that a change from this pattern is unlikely.” The Retail Prices Index has recently been published at 5.2% and although this is not a final figure, Coulson stated that in negotiations they will look to cut students’ costs elsewhere rather than haggle over rent.

“Teddy Hall has the highest rent in the University. We are used to be top of league tables…but this is one ranking that is less flattering.” He said he hoped that by making dining and vacation residence more affordable, he could “help [Teddy Hall] to gradually catch up with richer Colleges and hopefully go some small way to furthering inter-collegiate equality”.

Somerville, who have already submitted a proposal to the Finance Committee, are aiming for a rent raise of 3.4% because while David Railton, their JCR President, voted for the rent freeze motion, since he “believed it might prove an effective foil for other Presidents to use in their negotiations with College” he also said, “I think the argument has limited power in Somerville where internal factors such as the loan the College is repaying on our new student accommodation take centre stage.”

Moreover, Railton asserted that in looking at student finances, one must look at much more than simply the rent rates we pay.  Of negotiations so far, he said, “Our core premise for the initial proposal is that a student’s ability to support themselves through Oxford extends beyond the headline rent figure. Other costs, such as catering charges and vacation residence can massively eat into your student loan and change what you can afford overall.”

Almost all JCR Presidents who were willing to reveal their bargaining plans to Cherwell have concluded that there will be a raise in rents for students next academic year. For many, the real world increase in costs for colleges means that, despite a lack of increased income for students, a rent freeze is out of the question.

Stephen Dempsey, JCR President of Balliol, told Cherwell, “In negotiations with college authorities, I have no intention of utilising this statement from OUSU, and instead will conduct negotiations (with the best interests of the student body in mind of course) in the context of Balliol’s financial situation, the rising cost of accommodation in Oxford, and the impact of this on students.”

He also slammed the motion as “an idealistic statement” since it is “unclear how effective such a statement would be as an impetus in negotiations given OUSU’s inability to participate directly in negotiations.”

Balliol’s JCR has since voted to aim for a rent raise in line with the Van Noorden Index which is likely to be 4.6% this year.

Kevin Smith, the JCR President at Lincoln emphasized the fact that, “College executives need to have an idea of both their ‘ideal’ agreement, which might be a rent freeze, but also what they’re willing to accept, which might be a rent freeze or might be something less than a rent freeze depending on their College’s circumstances.”

St Peter’s President, Rob Collier, was the only JCR President who responded saying that a rent freeze may be possible. Negotiations have yet to begin at Peter’s, but he told Cherwell, “It’s a little early for me to say what kind of percentage increase I would hope for, although obviously I would like it to be as low as possible, maybe even in line with OUSU’s campaign on a rent freeze.”

“I think OUSU’s campaign for a rent freeze is a productive campaign: it will raise awareness that Oxford rent for students is too damn high and alert more people, both students and staff, to the hardships that some students face when the time comes to pay rent.”

When asked if he was disappointed that most colleges would not be trying to achieve the rent freeze OUSU proposed, David Barclay, OUSU President said, “Even if JCRs don’t want to use the idea of a rent freeze in their negotiations, it’s still helpful for OUSU to be talking about it because it focuses everybody’s attention on the affordability of rent for students. For too long rent rises have been just about College costs – when students can’t afford to pay that’s simply not good enough.”

Recently published results from the Student Barometer survey have revealed what students think about their experiences at Oxford. The survey, which covered areas as diverse as social life and support services, has shown what international students think about their financial situation.

According to the survey, only 49 percent of international students are satisfied with the current levels of financial support offered by colleges and the University, while 64 percent were satisfied with living costs in Oxford.

A Univ first year from New Jersey who applied to universities in both the US and the UK said, “For many people the lack of financial support may put them off from coming to Oxford particularly as, in order to get a visa you need to have enough money in your bank account already.

“Also, most of the Oxford bursaries are not available for international students which, compared with the fact that most Ivy League schools don’t look at nationality when assigning their very generous financial aid, puts Oxford at a competitive disadvantage.”

Although 85% of international students were satisfied with their overall arrival experience, the survey highlighted that opening a bank account was an area which posed difficulties, with only 51 percent satisfied with this process.

Clare Joyce, an international student from Univ, said, “it took me a week to get an appointment which was really annoying especially as in fresher’s week there are so many other things you want to be thinking about while trying to settle in.”

When asked about this the University said that they were trying to address this issue by hosting one to one meetings with each bank and inviting bank representatives to international student orientation.

The survey also revealed how experiences differ between colleges. International students at Lincoln were the most satisfied at 97 percent which was 20 percentage points higher than at Teddy Hall, the lowest ranking college.

Lincoln’s JCR President, Kevin Smith, himself an international student, commented, “I was delighted – but in no way surprised – to hear that Lincoln ranked highest for international student satisfaction. “Coming from overseas, I think what students want is to find a strong support network and immediate group of friends, and my experience has been that Lincoln provides both from day one.”

The survey showed that many international students applied uniquely to institutions in the UK, however for 92 percent of undergraduates questioned the biggest factor was the institution itself rather than the country.

The survey also revealed how domestic students are funding their studies ahead of nationwide changes to univerisity funding. 83 percent of current undergraduates who responded to the survey said they were using a government loan, while 54 percent of post-graduates were receiving funding from the Research Council.

Jesus College seems to have been Oxford’s most enthusiastic advocates with over 95 percent of students declaring that they would recommend the university while, at St Anthony’s, only 64 percent of students gave such a positive response.

For domestic students the top reason given for this recommendation was the organisation of their course, while employability was the most common reason for international students.

The University says it intends on running discussion groups with students to try to identify areas in which they can improve the student experience. It has recently agreed to a new partnership with statistical agency, i-graduate, in an attempt to streamline and integrate the process and get more useful responses.

Jared Hutchings, the co-ordinater of the survey, said that from last autumn students are sent only one survey per year, which simplified the system. He said, “Colleges can view the data by college, which means there is less of a need for additional and separate college surveys.

“Fewer surveys overall across the colleges and University also means hassling students less often, and this may well explain the relatively good response rate we achieve for the Student Barometer (33%).”