Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Blog Page 492

Walter Raleigh, Percy Shelley, and Me: Reflections on a First Term at Oxford

0

“So, how’s uni going?”

I imagine this question evokes the same kind of intense existential anguish as being asked how you’re dealing with the inevitability of ageing and the long parade to the graveyard. Being asked how you’re feeling during what are, according to some ominous jury of teachers, older siblings, and some random man on the tube, the best three years of your life, triggers a fair amount of self-reflection in the space of a ‘Fresh Prince’ record scratch.

So, you’re probably wondering how I got myself into this situation: one personal statement, two admissions tests, three a-levels, and four interviews later, you’re finally allowed into the most prestigious university in the world. “Isn’t that where [Percy Shelley/John Locke/Nigella Lawson] went?” they ask; “you’re going to meet the next prime minister!”, they say. So you spend your summer re-reading ‘Brideshead Revisited’, just to, you know, brush up on your picnic etiquette. This time next year, you say to yourself, I’ll be lounging under the shade of a weeping willow and reading Walt Whitman wondering if it’s repressed sexual tension in the air or just the smell of strawberries.

This time next year you are doing nothing of the sort. Your essay on Walt Whitman was ‘poorly researched’, ‘naïve’, and ‘quite frankly, Ben, unacceptable’, and the closest you’ve gotten to ‘Howard’s End’ is falling over onto the cheese floor on Park End Wednesday. Unspoken sexual tension has been replaced with very much expressed PDAs outside Fever, and the smell you get walking outside Tescos after Thursday night Bridge is most definitely not strawberries. Far from Nigella’s midnight croissants, you’re faced with the Sophie’s Choice of Hassan’s or Solomon’s at 3AM on a Monday night.

With the effects past eight weeks of your life slowly spreading across your eyes like a mumps epidemic, you desperately try to think of something – anything – you’ve actually done with your first term in the city of dreaming spires. “Oh, I’ve just been trying to settle in, you know, such a big change,” you say, like a liar: as if the only thing you’ve spent time settling into isn’t chips and gravy and a single bed. There was, of course, that one time you signed up for auditions in first week of Michaelmas term, only to find you actually have to learn a monologue, and the less said about your foray into college rowing, the better. There’s a definite anxiety of originality considering people like Rosamund Pike and Sir Matthew Pinsent were also kind of up for extra-curriculars, too. This can, of course, be hugely motivating (they had to start somewhere, right?) but the pressure to carve a path of that magnitude, to start a fledgling career that will lead you, if not literally to the stars, pretty damn close – looking at you, Edwin Hubble – can often feel suffocating.

We all got here because we’re ambitious people, but it’s easy for that ambition to become unfocused in such a jungle of opportunity: who knows, you could start up volleyball and become a gold medallist, or start student journalism and mingle with a future Pulitzer winner, but there’s an immense amount of pressure to commit and do something, and something big – surely someone made friends with Theresa May whilst she was at St. Hughs? With so many opportunities for networking, acting, debating, and so many examples of achievement across the centuries the sense of “why not me” can easily mutate into “why me at all”, and next thing you know you’ve unsubscribed from all the mailing lists you joined at the Fresher’s Fair, and you’re unable to tell an inquisitive Uber driver literally one interesting thing you’ve achieved at the single most interesting place on the planet.

This all raises the, perfectly logical, question of: why not just do something? Why not just do something indeed. Lots has been said about the odd phenomenon of “Oxford Time”, where a day feels like a week, a week feels like a day, and a term feels like you’ve been at university since shortly after its foundation in 1096. Oxford Time can also leave you feeling suspended in a limbo of opportunities, where you’re so saturated with things that you could be doing that your limbs seem to stop functioning, and you just sit in bed for what Oxford Mean Time tells you was half an hour, but what your watch tells you was half a day. The anxiety of influence coming to somewhere like Oxford – and, I imagine, the other one – is as well-known as the different time zone. There is, however, definitely something to be said for gazing up at the ceiling of the Rad Cam knowing it’s the same ceiling Lewis Carrol looked at as he dreamed up Wonderland (with, perhaps, the addition of opium) or Hugh Grant stared at, pushing back what I can only imagine to be a perfectly permed quaff, then looking back down at your essay on the historical variation of the Coventry dialect and feeling like they were at an Oxford that was decidedly different to yours, yet worryingly the same. Did Tolkien ever have to deal with a college-wide gonorrhoea outbreak? Did Rachel Riley ever compulsively check Oxlove looking for RR @ O? Did Margaret Thatcher ever wish she’d joined the Oxford University Paintballing Society instead of the union?

Existential anguish aside, I’ve been having really quite a lovely time. But under the deep psychoanalysis that occurs anytime literally anyone asks me how it’s going, I can’t help but wonder if ‘really quite a lovely time’ can be reconciled with the ‘best three years of my life.’ Starting Oxford is like being one of those tourists that mill about outside the Rad Cam (you know the ones that walk on the grass when there are signs up in literally eight languages saying not to) suddenly being allowed in, then looking up at the ceiling, taking a few pictures, and being told you’re only here for another seven terms, make the most of it. Knowing what kind of student you’re going to be is like the moment before your matriculation photo, where you’re not sure whether you should smile, smoulder, or go for the dignified, stone-faced stare down the camera lens, but you know that, whatever you do, this photo is supposed to capture an important milestone in your life, and the pressure of deciding which face to pull means the next thing you know, the flash has gone off and you end up looking like a mildly constipated hyena. Perhaps this very article is a product of that exact feeling…

Safe to say, this is all rather a lot to process under the socially acceptable time constraints of human conversation. So when you’re aunt/friend/Uber driver asks you the dreaded “how’s uni?” your brain automatically chucks out a “Oh yeah, it’s really nice! Having a great time!” which, of course, you are – aren’t you? Sure, you may not have been invited to Brideshead yet, but you managed to make it through last Bop without passing out for once, so who’s the real winner here?

I’m Still Standing: Why Final Year is the Best

0

At the end of Trinity last year, I honestly thought that second year was as good as it got. I had a good second year, but I didn’t do anything particularly memorable. I did my degree, and a few bits and bobs when I felt like it. I was also under the impression that once you reach final year, you have to crack down and properly work, to get a proper degree.

Haaaaa – what absolute bullshit! This year has been FANTASTIC. Sure, I’m super stressed because I still have to get that proper degree, but I am living my best life.

Finally, 6 months before I graduate, I have ventured out of college walls to join a society. Cherwell has been a God send – very much needed breath of fresh air. While you may hear horror stories about spending hours on end in an office without heating (all true), I have made friends OUTSIDE of college and I actually LOVE it.

My biggest regret from my first two years – not getting involved in anything. Honestly, first year is a bit of a blur. Looking back, I wasn’t in a very good place which I definitely didn’t realise at the time. But, that meant I literally only did my degree. I didn’t do any extracurricular aside from a singular netball match each week. This was a big contrast from school where I stayed late every day for various things.

Don’t get me wrong, I did have a very good first year and I’ve made some friends for life (which is the most important thing, in my humble and correct opinion), so I’m not going to waste your time recalling my inner emotions from two years ago. But, when looking at the huge difference between my first and final year (so far) I can see why I’m having such a better time.

Firstly, at the risk of sounding unbelievably cheesy, I am so much more confident in myself. I cannot quite decide whether I’ve simply adopted a “fuck-it” attitude because I just don’t have time to care about a lot of things, or whether I’ve actually grown as a person. I’d like to think it’s the latter, but I reckon it’s a mixture of the two.

At the risk of sounding like an absolute nerd, even for this place, I am also loving my work. A thesis is a scary thing, but I now understand why it’s considered the most rewarding part of the degree. Also, after two terms of relentless classes, tutes, coursework, and now while I’m knee deep in my thesis, I really can’t wait to start revising. I currently have very limited memory of the last year and a half’s work, so I can’t wait for it all to make sense again. Plus, the library-hermit life is really quite enjoyable.

While I’m definitely going out less than first year, the main reason why this year has been quite so good is the social. I’ve never been a keen clubber, in fact – if I actually make it to a club – I usually sneak off at about 1am, to the despair of my friends. But there are two key differences between first (and second) year and third year. Number one, I have stopped going out for the sake of it. For the past two years, I would go out to Bridge or Park End because I thought I probably should, and I’d bend to peer pressure (what a bitch). Now, I go out because I genuinely want to, which has been revolutionary. Secondly, me and my friends are doing so many more cute things, like late night G&Ds, spontaneous trips to Spoons, and early morning breakfasts. It also helps that by this point I know who my friends are, and who I really want to hang out with.

It is 5th week of Hilary of my final year at Oxford, and I just feel so much more comfortable than I did when I arrived. I’m comfortable in my own skin, comfortable with my ability, my views, and with my friends. I am finally in the right place, and I feel good.

Understandably, therefore, my impending graduation is slightly upsetting. I keep thinking how much better my whole university experience would have been if I had simply changed a few things earlier. But, then again, I was a different person two years ago, and who knows what she would have done under the amount of work and lack of sleep I have now. She could barely do an essay and a half a week. No, I try to keep those thoughts out of brain and just be thankful with what I have.

Don’t get me started about jobs or further education. It’s slightly terrifying that a good proportion of my friends have jobs lined up for after graduation. Sometimes I question why on earth I didn’t just bite the bullet and do law or banking. Then off to the city I would go in September to earn lots and lots of money. Others are straight onto the master’s track, something I am definitely considering. People do masters to either bolster their CV for a certain field, e.g. international development, or they want to be an academic. You can rule the latter out straight away, and as for the former… surely you have to work out what you want to do first before applying for one?

All the indecision and cluelessness surrounding my future has left me with one option: GAP YEAR! Of course, this was not actually my only option. I could very well get a job, but I also just want a break. I have been in education for 19 years now, and I think it’s time to stop for a bit.

For this final reason, I am not scared about leaving university. It has been the best, and worst, time of my life, but I am ready to move onto the next phase. I have a million thoughts – journalist, diplomat, barrister, baker. I reckon if I had a job lined up, while it would be very reassuring, I would also probably be less excited about the next year. In fact, the endless fountain of opportunities keeps me going.

Opinion | Nevada Caucuses: Lessons Learned

0

RESULTS (87,55% of precincts reporting): Sanders 47,1%; Biden 20,1%; Buttigieg 13,6%; Warren 9,7%; Steyer 4,7%; Klobuchar 3,9%. 

Mr. Sanders won a decisive victory in the first diverse state to vote in the 2020 Democratic Primary, showing great improvement from his 2016 performance, and dominating the field across nearly every demographic. His win came as a muddled field failed to produce a challenger to Mr. Sanders. While Mr. Biden carried the African-American vote, his performance was nevertheless disappointing for a former Vice-President in a state that saw him lead in polls for months before the caucuses. Mr. Buttigieg, in a state he has invested heavily in, struggled with minority voters and garnered just enough votes to expect delegates. Despite a widely-praised debate performance, Ms. Warren underperformed, while Ms. Klobuchar, despite momentum from her strong New Hampshire finish, and Mr. Steyer, despite his investments in the state, both did poorly. 

Here’s what we took away from the results of the Nevada Caucus:

  1. All Welcome to the Political Revolution

In 2016, Nevada was the state that cemented the narrative that Mr. Sanders was a candidate unable to marshal the minority support necessary to win the Democratic Nomination. Ms. Clinton’s victory was largely fueled by older and minority voters, while Mr. Sanders won mostly younger, whiter, and more liberal voters. However, in 2020, Mr. Sanders has turned this trend around entirely: “Tio Bernie”, as he has affectionately been baptized by his star surrogate Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, has made Latino outreach a cornerstone of his campaign. In Nevada alone, the Sanders campaign has hired 66 Latino campaign staffers, held events called “Tamales with Tio Bernie”, and stressed the word “multiracial” in his campaign’s mainstay explanation of the “multi-generational, multi-racial, working class political revolution” he hopes to stage. Mr. Sanders’ ability to attract minority support (which will soon again be tested by South Carolina’s large African-American population on February 29th) is fixing the key weakness of his 2016 challenge to Ms. Clinton, and sets him on a clear path to the nomination. 

What makes Mr. Sanders’ win even more impressive was his support that transcended other demographic lines: he won a plurality of women, voters between 17 and 29 years old, voters between 20 and 44 years old, and voters between 45 and 64 years old. He was able to win voters with a college degree, and those without. He also carried union and nonunion households – and he even was able to win moderate and conservative Democrats. Most impressively, despite the powerful Culinary Union’s attacks on Mr. Sanders and his Medicare-for-All proposal, he won a majority of union households and did very well in caucus sites on the Vegas Strip, where service workers dominate the population. Mr. Sanders effectively won nearly every category of voter in Nevada, proving that he has widespread appeal and the ability to galvanize and earn the support of nearly every segment of the Democratic base. 

This growing broad support is behind his good poll numbers and might carry him in South Carolina, California, and Texas – three delegate-heavy states voting before March 3rdin which Mr. Sanders has been gaining ground thanks to his increasing share of minority support. Crucially, this also neutralizes Mr. Biden’s main path to the nomination: if Mr. Sanders can also attract African-American and Latino support, then Mr. Biden’s path to the nomination, which runs through the diverse states in which Mr. Sanders is picking up more and more support, seems increasingly unlikely. If Mr. Sanders is able to continue to command widespread and broad support as he has in Nevada, Mr. Sanders will not simply be the front-runner – he will be a convincing nominee. 

  • The (Failing) Search for the Anti-Bernie

While Mr. Sanders seems closer and closer to building a commanding lead that could win him a plurality of delegates before the convention, he lacks an immediate challenger, or an “anti-Bernie”.  This is not for lack of trying: three candidates have increasingly sought to paint contrasts between themselves and Mr. Sanders in the hope of creating a two-way race: Mr. Buttigieg, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Bloomberg. 

All three of them have attacked Mr. Sanders on similar grounds. Mr. Buttigieg has ramped up his criticism of Mr. Sanders recently, decrying his “inflexible ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans”. Mr. Biden also used his concession speech in Nevada to paint a contrast between himself and Mr. Sanders, stating:“I ain’t a socialist. I’m not a plutocrat. I’m a Democrat,” – taking a swipe at Mr. Sanders’ registration as an Independent, and his seemingly divisive “democratic socialist” tag. And Mr. Sanders was the target of Mr. Bloomberg’s few successful attack lines in the Nevada debate, arguing the Democratic Party “shouldn’t throw out capitalism”, and attacking Mr. Sanders’ millionaire status.  

These attacks have gained in intensity recently, but they have not enabled any of the three most likely moderate challengers to Mr. Sanders to place themselves as his primary opponent. Arguably, this is the main story that emerged from Nevada: while Mr. Sanders’ is emerging as a frontrunner, he lacks a clear challenger, with all 3 of his potential challengers unable to overcome their weaknesses. Mr. Buttigieg has made little to no headway with minority voters, Mr. Bloomberg’s debate performance was so underwhelming that it dented his rise in polls, and Mr. Biden lost Latino voters to Mr. Sanders and only $ 7M left in the bank (Mr. Sanders has around $ 17M). 

This multi-candidate field is undoubtedly to Mr. Sanders’ advantage, and makes his path to the nomination more straightforward: he could emerge from a divided field consistently winning delegates from most primary states, while the rest of the candidates could cannibalize each other’s chances to compete with Mr. Sanders and consistently reach the 15% viability threshold statewide and in congressional districts in order to clinch delegates.   

  • Caucuses Don’t Work

Harry Reid, an influential baron of the Nevada Democratic Party and former Senate Majority Leader, suggested after the caucuses: “All caucuses should be a thing of the past. They don’t work for a multitude of reasons”. He joined a growing chorus of voices in the Democratic Party calling for an end to the caucus system after technical glitches and democratic critiques have clouded both the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. 

This comes after Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign has appealed the results in Nevada, citing “material irregularities”. There have been some reports that the incorporation of early voting to the caucus system in Nevada created confusion, and may cloud the results in some precincts. And, in addition to these issues, as of Monday (and the time of writing of this article), the Nevada Democratic Party has only been able to report 87% of precincts (the caucus took place on Friday, and 60% of the results were known on Sunday). These failures come after the debacle in Iowa, which has still not been called, and where a recount will begin on Tuesday. Nevada is the second caucus in a row to experience technical difficulties, and to be contested. The arcane caucus process, with its quirks and specificities, has proven itself unable to deliver results without technical glitches.  

In addition to the fact they are unreliable, caucuses are by their nature undemocratic: they require voters to be physically present and standing at a caucus site for hours for their vote to count, and as a result of this commitment, they usually only garner small voter turnout (Iowa caucus turnout was 12% of the eligible population). This burden on the voter has historically excluded people of color, people with disabilities, working people who are unable to commit the time at night, and people who don’t speak English. Moreover, the lack of anonymity in a caucus often adds a layer of social pressure and control that distorts the democratic process.  

The conclusion? The caucus system is a flawed system. The Democratic and Republican Parties need to replace all caucuses with primaries to fully engage as many voters as possible in primaries and restore faith in the democratic process.

  • The Great Winnowing That Never Came: Towards a Contested Convention?

After Nevada, it has also become clear that candidates like Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren have no path to the nomination: FiveThirtyEight’s model gives them 0,1%, 0,1%, and 2% chances of winning a plurality of pledged delegates. Their results in Nevada were all disappointing, especially for Ms. Warren after her sizzling debate performance. While Mr. Steyer has the ability to self-fund, Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobuchar have nearly exhausted their campaign funds ahead of the most expensive stretch of the campaign: Super Tuesday. Ms. Warren has $ 2,3M left in her campaign account, and Ms. Klobuchar has an equally paltry $ 2,9M left. While the field remains historically large, it is beginning to become unsustainably so. The expensive and sprawling task of campaigning and competing in Super Tuesday states will likely have the long-awaiting winnowing effect on the field. 

Even if this is the case, it remains unclear whether the size of the field will allow any candidate to win a majority of pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. That same FiveThirtyEight model predicts a 40% chance of no single candidate able to win a majority of pledged delegates – the second most after Mr. Sanders. Every candidate except for Mr. Sanders indicated that they would not want to give the nomination to a candidate with a plurality of pledged delegates (this would likely be Mr. Sanders) but without the required majority. 

This could lead to a contested convention – a scenario for which multiple candidates, including Mr. Bloomberg have been strategizing already according to reports. This would give super delegates, party elites, a role in determining who the candidate should be at the convention on the second ballot of voting. If the race is unsettled and undecided by July, with the field still large and divided, the convention in Milwaukee could play a real role in choosing, and not just formalizing, the identity of the nominee. 

Cherpse! Joe and Ed

0

Joe Drakeley, Oriel, Physics, 2nd Year

We met at the steps of the Ashmolean which is surprisingly ominous at night, despite it only being 7.30pm. I hadn’t anticipated how cold it would be so almost froze waiting for him to arrive. When he showed up we said our hellos and agreed to walk to Freud in Jericho. On the walk we properly introduced ourselves with all the usual boring questions so it was nice to get those out of the way and it turned out we had a mutual friend which was interesting. We arrived at Freud and found it was closed so decided to enter a pub across the road which for the life of me I cannot remember the name of. We sat down, ordered a drink and talked about our respective lives, all in all a very standard first date. We only stayed for one drink, then walked back to central Oxford together and said our goodbyes.

First impressions:
He seemed really smiley and friendly, though not my usual type.

Did it meet your expectations:
I know it’s very cliche to say for this but I didn’t really have any expectations for this date as it was very last minute.

What was the highlight:
I wouldn’t say there was a particular highlight, maybe it was the fact that he was so friendly.

Most embarrassing moment:
When I walked into the pub and the barman didn’t hear me say hello back to him and called me out for being rude.

Describe the date in three words:
Short, quiet, chill.

Is a second date on the cards:
Probably not as we are very different people.

Ed Buxton, Jesus, German and Linguistics, 4th Year

I—unsurprisingly, as my friends would say—was the one running slightly late, so was spared the fearful pacing up and down the Ashmolean steps wondering whether I would be stood up. I went for the handshake, immediately asking myself: y tho? Hey ho. He suggested Freud so we had a decent walk for the start of a date, making classic small talk such as commenting on how cold it was (we were both in thin jackets, and it was, in fact, cold), complaining about the mountains of work awaiting us on our desks, and desperately trying to think of mutual friends (or acquaintances: anyone really) we might have. Freud was shut, so a few paces on and it was Jude the Obscure, Jericho which rescued us from the cold and provided a roof over our heads for the date. Nice G&T, decent chat, but I’m not sure if the spark was there for me.

First impressions:
Cool sense of style – rocking a black turtle neck, denim jacket, ripped jeans and shiny black Chelsea boots.

Did it meet up to expectations?
My only fear was being stood up, so yes!

What was the highlight?
Sitting opposite such a stylishly dressed guy for like 40 minutes plus, tbh.

What was the most embarrassing moment? Asking what his surname was for the inevitable Facebook stalk (yes I waited till the end at least…) and him responding that I wouldn’t need it for the Cherwell write-up.

Describe the date in three words:
Chill, chill, chill.

Is a second date on the cards?
Probably not, but I wouldn’t mind seeing that outfit again…

Matty Bovan AW20 LFW Show Review

0

In a fashion week which is churning out Victoria Beckham’s bland, half-heartedly tailored black coats and Richard Quinn’s line-overstepping spiked gimp masks, Matty Bovan is exactly what we needed. This London Fashion Week brought us York-based designer, Matty Bovan’s, first solo show for AW20. As a self-declared ‘huge non-fan’ of Brexit he wanted to create a new vision for the future; one marked by hope, sustainability and an utter disregard for any fashion conventions or conglomerates. 

His show was defined by his sense of fun. Backstage, it was cramped and hot, but the atmosphere was one of creativity, collaboration and excitement. Unlike most designers who rarely see the make-up or hair-dressing stage of the show preparation, Matty was in the mix from the very beginning, greeting all the models and hugging everyone. Despite the huge pressure he was under to create a smooth, successful first show, his genial and appreciative attitude never faltered. He showed genuine gratitude to every model, every dresser and every hair or make up artist for coming to his show. 

The clothes themselves showed a playful interaction with most of the high fashion conglomerate brands around him. He pokes fun at ‘feminine’ silhouettes, creating some looks underpinned with long pannier sticks that threatened to knock out members of the audience at points. As a graduate in Fashion Knitwear at Central Saint Martins, it seems only fitting that one of the looks was an almost sail-like asymmetrical pannier stick lined across the model’s shoulders, draped with bright yellow knitwear with the slogan ‘enter’. When talking to Vogue before the show, he laughed at his own creations: ‘I think it’s important to challenge the silhouette of the body. Have you ever seen knitwear in that shape?’. No Matty, we haven’t.

In a recent interview with Matty Bovan, the Guardian talked to him about his living and working arrangements. Most of the high fashion world is centred around London, Paris and Milan and yet Matty has rejected these epicentres for his family home in York. He creates his brilliant works in a garage at the bottom of his garden, as he has since he was 16. The handicraft aspect of his work is important: he makes almost all of his own clothes, helped occasionally by other Central Saint Martins graduates, and with jewellery crafted by his mum. His ethos is one of sustainability (much of the recent show was created with reject denim donated by Fiorucci or recycled fabrics) and each look is uniquely created. Despite being offered the prestigious LVMH Graduate Prize and the accompanying year-long job at Louis Vuitton, he decided that the company did not share his same approach to design and left halfway through. Louis Vuitton’s mass-production lines and multiple deadlines did not fit into Matty’s world-vision, hence his return to York and hand-dyed fabrics.

Matty tells the Guardian, ‘I always say I’m not a political designer, but I am very interested in politics – how can you not be?’. But rather than paying seamstresses to stitch hypocritical political slogans onto mass-produced t-shirts, as many big brands do, Matty weaves his ethos into the very clothes he creates by hand. His concern is one for waning creativity; a concern he developed ever since there were subject cuts in the art department at his old school in Leeds when he taught there. He is deeply concerned with impending problems such as Climate Change in a way that many fashion brands only pretend to despite investing in mass-produced and big-budgeted shows. Matty offers us genuine hope for the future of fashion and a vision of clothes which are ethically and creatively designed, and brilliantly optimistic.

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly claimed that designer Richard Quinn’s show featured underage models. This was unfounded and we are happy to make clear that it is not the case.

Cherwell’s Declassified Oxford Clubbing Fashion Guide

0

A knitted turtleneck and mum jeans. 

This is an outfit for running errands; these are items of clothing you grab from your floor on a crisp winter’s morning before running to a lecture; however, this is not acceptable club attire.

I will never quite forget my first night of Freshers Week. We were all kindred spirits in these moments: nervously getting ready in your new dorm, agonising over the perfect balance of ‘smart casual’, wondering whether there is an absolute Truth and Beauty to be found in the perfect ‘nice top and jeans’ combination. PT’s was the motive and expectations were already set low; but everything changed when we first arrived and I saw a girl wearing a knitted turtleneck and mum jeans, attempting to mosh to ABBA before 11pm. 

Oxford, this is not okay. Some of the brightest and best minds of our generation may be enrolled here, but you are not exempt from the all-seeing and scrutinising gaze of the fashion world. Anna Wintour rests comfortably atop the western cultural hierarchy like a chic Doctor T. J. Eckleburg in vintage Chanel sunglasses.

On the other hand, who can blame you? Perhaps you aren’t even aware of the faux pas you are committing. So, to lend a helping hand, I have drawn up this handy-dandy guide to what you should and shouldn’t be wearing to each of Oxford’s favourite clubs:

Park End

So, you’ve come to Park End. You are either fresh from a crew date or you unashamedly love cheese, chart music and VKs; your fashion reflects this. Lads are in their finest soiled white shirts (sport-specific paraphernalia optional) or North Face tees, the fabric clings to your bodies in anticipation of the sweat and drink stains that await. Girls, you’ve thrown on your favourite Topshop Joni Jeans because they’re comfortable and reliable and you’ve worn them for the last six years straight, so why would you stop now? Literally any vest/halter/racerback crop top or Fruit of the Loom t-shirt will prove to be a winning combo. 

Plush

As the only designated LGBTQ+ club in Oxford, Plush is a breeding ground for all kinds of mayhem, fashion included. Not one person will be suitably dressed for any event: mesh tops and bra-lets worn under parkas and blazers, glitter and face paint with button down shirts. 

There is no set uniform for Plush, simply due to the plurality of persons that climb (or gracefully descend) its treacherous stairs and haunt its sweat-filled coves; however, most outfits will be an iteration of each’s ‘pulling outfit’ with a touch of conservatism. Bonus points are given to those untamable bacchanalians that turn up to the club in the same outfit they’ve worn all day, but chuck on a choker or anything with mesh; y’all are truly wild.

Bridge

Bridge is the domain of Oxford’s fashion elite (when there are no events on at the Bully or O2). Students throng to its hallowed queue in their biggest baggy trousers, layers upon layers of chains and oversized t-shirts on top of oversized t-shirts. To fit into the crowd your trainers should be near death, the only acceptable jacket style is puffer – North Face preferable – and your hair should be centre parted: this is a rule strictly enforced on the door for all, so beware those with cow licks and non-standard partings/styles: you have been warned. 

Fever

Anything. You could be wearing literally anything. You’ve just had a bop, a formal, you’ve just left the library. Fever is the domain of the bottom of the laundry basket: that top that you brought with you ‘just in case’, that t-shirt with the small stain you hope no one notices. Everything and nothing can fly in the velvet-covered walls of this place. The best style advice possible is wear a face-shielding hat.. and no Superdry. 

Mansfield principal calls for 90% state-educated intake

0

The principal of Mansfield College, Helen Mountfield QC, called for Oxford University to take up to 90% of its students from state schools, in an interview with The Sunday Times last weekend.

Mountfield, who was educated at a comprehensive school, said: “I would like to see [the proportion of students] to be broadly representative of the society from which people come. That would be about 90%”

Denying that the policy of taking more state school applicants amounted to social engineering, Mountfield said: “What you’re trying to do is recognise some of the patterns of advantage of society and … find potential by trying to set those aside.”

She recalled a previous conversation with a judge, regarding positive discrimination for female lawyers wanting to join the bench, during her time as a QC.

“He said ‘You know, I think it would be dreadful for women. They would feel they were only there because they were women.’ And I said to him, ‘Does it undermine your self-confidence that you’re a white man? Do you ever think, maybe I’m only a judge because I’m a white man and if I was a woman I wouldn’t be here?’”

Mansfield leads the way in Oxford colleges in terms of state school admissions at 90% for this year. A quarter of students accepted are the first in their family to go to university.

Mountfield said the number of Mansfield students achieving first-class and 2:1 degrees increased after more state school educated students were admitted. Previous to this, Mansfield had been “at the bottom” of the Norrington Table.

“We have consistently gone up and this year we are fifth. It shows that we are … not saying let’s let in some poor kids as a charity case … but identifying cleverer people because we are looking more broadly at who might benefit from being here.”

Mountfield went on to say that admissions tutors take whether a teenager is from a poor area and if they are the first in their family to go to university into consideration during the application process.

“It might be the person with sparky ideas [of whom] you think ‘I can teach you to write like a dream. But what I can’t teach you is ideas.’ So we’re just trying to find the people who might be slightly fumbling for it, who haven’t been taken to the theatre all through childhood, or seen people reading broadsheet newspapers.”

Mountfield’s expression of support follows the announcement that the University made more than 69% of its undergraduate offers this year to students attending state schools, an increase of 4.6% on the previous year and a record high.

Dr Samina Khan, Director of Undergraduate Admissions and Outreach at Oxford, said at the time: “We know that students from some backgrounds are not as well-represented at Oxford as they should be, and we are determined that this should change.

“Having taught in state schools during my career, I know the wealth of talent that lies there. We wish the students every success in their studies, and hope they flourish at Oxford.”

Mountfield’s statement comes in the face of criticism from some University figures.

A source high up in University admissions told The Sunday Telegraph last month: “The instructions we received were that we had to interview them as long as they met very basic standards – and some even failed those.

“My experience is that those candidates just don’t do very well. We call them to interview because we have to. They just do really badly and we reject them and it’s a waste of everyone’s time. But if this target of 25% is going to be met, we will have to start admitting some of these people.”

The 2020 Oscars: Fashion with a Voice

0

The 2020 Oscars was a night in which history was made, with Parasite being the first foreign-language film to win Best Picture, and the animated short Hair Love proving that a celebration of natural hair can be worthy of critical acclaim. Janelle Monáe shouted out to artists of colour in her opening song; Joaquin Phoenix advocated the need for compassion in a moving acceptance speech; Billie Eilish gave a haunting rendition of The Beatles’ ‘Yesterday’ for the ‘In Memoriam’ segment. It was a night of firsts, the usual dose of political statements, and a new conception of what kind of film can win Best Picture.

On the fashion front, however, it wasn’t quite so revolutionary. Many of those in attendance seemed to be playing it safe, wearing looks that in no way reflected the best of recent haute couture collections or indeed said anything significant at all. Other awards shows this season saw celebrities taking risks with their looks, such as Lily-Rose Depp’s entirely-lace catsuit layered with a sheer camisole dress at the BAFTAs, or Zendaya’s Tom Ford breastplate in hot pink at the Critics’ Choice Awards, two interesting, innovative takes on red-carpet fashion. Being the most high-profile award show of the season, it wouldn’t be amiss to expect the pinnacle of glamour and wow-factor from the Oscars red carpet, but the looks this year largely failed to impress. Even those who did try to make a statement with their clothes, such as Natalie Portman and her cape with the names of female directors snubbed for awards embroidered in the side, didn’t achieve the desired effect – Portman’s look was labelled ‘deeply offensive’ by prominent activist Rose McGowan, something that has certainly problematized the look whether or not the criticisms are fair.

Fashion’s ability to speak is not something we should think of as surprising or in any way “new”. Clothes have been used to denote power, express individuality, and influence societal values since the dawn of time. For celebrities, fashion is another way to communicate with the public and give us a little something of themselves that we might not otherwise get from their creative work. Ariana Grande’s Giambattista Valli grey tulle dress at the Grammys last month, for example, demonstrated an ability to engage with haute couture fashion and play with recent trends, and the amount of media coverage it received was telling of its resonance with the public. Stars such as Gwendoline Christie and Billy Porter, who are known to be experimental on the red carpet and take their looks seriously, gain positive coverage for it and give us something memorable to associate them with. And while that may not be the main objective of awards shows in general, it can’t be said that it’s of no importance.

So this year, the stars who really stood out on that front were those who did something a bit different, or showed themselves to be using fashion to make the public think. One of the ways this was achieved was by “upcycling” clothes – re-wearing old outfits instead of contributing to environmental waste and debuting an entirely new design. Jane Fonda, who was arrested five times last year for protesting against climate change as part of her “fire-drill Fridays”, re-wore her dress from the 2014 Cannes red carpet. Elizabeth Banks dug back even further into her wardrobe, wearing a dress she’d first worn at the Vanity Fair Oscars after-party in 2004. In an Instagram post, she wrote: ‘it’s gorgeous and it fits … so why not wear it again!?’

While from a fashion perspective the looks as a whole may have been slightly disappointing, seeing celebrities advocate causes they’re passionate about in the form of their clothes is undoubtedly interesting and meaningful. Stars such as Kaitlyn Dever and Léa Seydoux wore dresses by Louis Vuitton in collaboration with the Red Carpet Green Dress organization, whose mission it is to get designers to create 100% sustainable looks. Saoirse Ronan’s Gucci dress was an innovative take on “upcycling”, with her black satin bodice being made of excess fabric from her gown at the BAFTAs earlier this month. Margot Robbie’s navy Chanel dress was entirely vintage, having come from the brand’s 1994 haute couture collection. And Olivia Colman, winner of last year’s Best Actress award, wore a dress crafted from a sustainable velvet by famously eco-friendly brand Stella McCartney.

The fashion industry may have a lot more work to do in facing up to its contribution towards environmental pollution, but stars using their platform to raise awareness of the issue is a great step in the right direction, and more of them should be doing it. The overall trends we can spot at high-profile events like the Oscars tell us a lot about the directions we’re moving in as a society, and the more in-tune celebrities are with what the world needs, the better.

The Pitfalls of Sale Season Shopping

0

The end of a season is always a slightly odd time. A season in terms of the annual fashion cycle, that is. Spring might seem an awfully long way off for us at the moment, but the fashion world did Spring 2020 long ago. It’s a distant memory. Right now, the Autumn/Winter 2020 fashion weeks are well underway and we’ve already had a glimpse into the looks which will be unavoidable in nine months’ time. Yet at the same time retailers are desperately trying to flog the last of their stock from this season past, which we in turn first saw over a year ago. The seasonal collection system can risk making clothes feel remarkably old absurdly quickly, but then that’s also a marker of its success, at least from a commercial point of view.

So how, then, do the Net-a-Porter’s and Liberty’s of the world go about getting rid of these clothes that everyone already decided they didn’t want over a year ago? With SALES of course! Ever since Boxing Day we’ve been in the throes of the gradually escalating biannual sale frenzy, and it’s only just reaching its climax now. Things start off moderately: a 25% off here, a third off there. Not enough to convince someone who wasn’t already interested in an item, though. The beginnings of the sale period are for those who’ve been lusting after items that they can’t quite justify to themselves, but which were never truly out of the question. There’s no harm in that. To pay for 75% of the retail price of a garment is to recognise and appreciate its full value but to be unable to actually stump up the funds for it. And indeed, in many cases that retail price will have been so ludicrously expensive as to alienate all but a very select few buyers. For the majority of those who follow fashion, buying at any time other than in the sales is simply out of the question.

But it’s at this point in the season, when the winter coats on sale will probably see no more than a month’s wear (if we’re being optimistic about the weather) before being stowed away until October, that the discounts can get a bit silly. Lots of high-end retailers now have sales reaching up to 80% off. Eighty percent! Reductions like that can’t help but alter the attitude of the consumer. To pay for 20% of what a garment is supposedly worth is to view it in an entirely different light to the person who pays full price, or even 75%. No one who has spotted a piece they really desire will sit in wait for it to drop in price by that much before buying; if they would, then they were probably never interested in actually acquiring it in the first place.

Sure, luck might have it that an item you liked the look of but could never even consider buying might happen to be reduced by so much that it then became a feasible purchase, but that would be a chance event, a fluke resulting from your liking an item few others did. The overwhelming majority of people who buy something at 20% or 25% of its original price did not originally intend to buy it.

Enormous discounts risk devaluing a garment. They obscure the hours of work and preparation that went into it and the originality of its design, reducing the decision to purchase it to one based on momentary impulse. Of course, some clothes are simply not worth what they are retailed for, and their price does not accurately reflect the process of their manufacturing. These will inevitably go on sale, and in such cases the changes in the market will reflect their real value. But for many of the clothes sitting at 75% off the reason for that will be that not enough people liked them in the first place. The people who are tempted to buy by the magnitude of a discount do so more often than not because they view it as ‘taking a punt’. Huge reductions encourage the consumer to think ‘why not?’, to buy because they might as well or because they feel like they’re getting a good deal rather than because they really value whatever it is that they’re buying. Buying something you didn’t intend to because it’s on sale is not you getting a good deal, it’s you spending money on something you’re not actually sure you want.

It’s a damaging mindset: for the consumers themselves, who end up paying for things they might not actually want; for the designers and manufacturers, whose creations are devalued and whose efforts and artistry are cheapened along with the price; and for the planet, which suffers from every step of the process that goes into the making and the transportation of clothes which people don’t particularly want and certainly don’t need.

Of course, it’s impossible for designers and professional buyers to predict exactly which pieces will sell and which won’t. There will always be a surplus of items which can’t be shifted at full price or even with moderate discounts. In fact, a total aversion to allowing things to go on sale can be just as problematic an attitude; it’s just that outlook which meant that Burberry preferred to burn £28.6m worth of unsold clothes in 2017 rather than to allow them to sit on the rack for a reduced price and damage their brand image in doing so.

High-end sales are a good thing in that they make luxury fashion more accessible and more democratic. A preoccupation with exclusivity and with maintaining resource scarcity only alienates people. But this accessibility should manifest itself in people getting the chance to have things they really value but couldn’t otherwise afford, not in their buying on a whim, which does nothing but reinforce our already prevalent perception of clothes as largely disposable and of retail consumption as frivolous. Sales are and always will be an essential part of retail, but discount purchases are only justifiable if they’re for the right reasons. They should be an opportunity to buy things you already wanted but couldn’t before, yet they are all too often the playground of impulse.

This is why sales at the lower end of the fashion spectrum are the most troublesome of all. The fact is that almost any full-price item in a high-street shop or online fast fashion retailer is affordable, if not immediately then after a small period of saving. And anyway, we should have to save for our clothes or at least think hard before buying them if we are to truly value them in any sense. Paying £5 for a shirt that has a retail value of £20 is most likely not a result of its suddenly having become a feasible purchase, but of it having gone from a price you’d have to think twice about to one that can be viewed as risk-free. It’s wanton consumerism, and in the fast fashion model the collections are weekly, not biannual. The sales are constant, not something to look forward to. The clothes are disposable, not treasured. They’re so cheap that you’re tricked into feeling like you’d be losing money not buying them. The seasons might move fast in the world of runway fashion, but at least there are seasons.

If music be the food of love, prey on

0

There are two types of Korean faces that generally appear in the Western media. One is thin, chiselled, and attached to a K-pop star; the other is chubby, hostile, and spilling over the top of a DPRK uniform.

  And then there is Bong Joon Ho. Parasite’s sensational run at the Oscars saturated news and social media alike, thanks in part to Bong’s exceptionally meme-able decision to make his newly acquired statuettes kiss. The unbridled wholesomeness of the director- goggling up at Quentin Tarantino with wire rims a-gleam and phone camera in hand— belies the tone of his work. In the words of The Guardian, Parasite satirises the forces of “status envy, aspiration, materialism, and the patriarchal family unit”. These forces, portrayed so cynically in Bong’s film, are equally present in another Korean mass cultural export: K-pop. 

The so-called ‘Korean wave’, or hallyu, saw South Korean culture explode across the globe in the 21st century; a 2014 article in The Economist dubbed Korean pop culture “Asia’s foremost trendsetter”, partly due to its use as a government soft-power tool. Like many of the country’s post-war creations, however, K-pop reflects the highly corporate nature of South Korean society. In 2011, music mogul Lee Soo-man gave a speech at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, explaining the ‘cultural technology’ concept with which he changed Korea forever. Some 20 years previously, Lee had created a K-pop export manual, specifying everything from chords and eye shadow colours suited to particular countries, to the camera angles for music videos (a 360° opening shot followed by a montage of closeups). Lee’s company, SM Entertainment, also developed the ‘Four Core Stages’ model, which continues to dominate the industry- and which may be viewed as an expression of the same forces satirised in Parasite. 

The Four Stages- casting, training, producing, and managing- are designed to maximise the efficiency and profit of the K-pop product. While this model brought Korean culture to international prominence, it also drew criticism for its heavy human cost. Aspiring idols as young as 12 or 13 are vulnerable to ‘slave contracts’- a form of indentured servitude with the agency that trains them, a process which can take up to a decade. Many groups take years to pay off their ‘trainee debt’, which covers the cost of singing and dance lessons, PR, plastic surgery, and more; despite the apparently luxurious celebrity lifestyle, performers may not actually receive royalties until they have repaid these expenses. Even after debuting, idols often continue to live in dormitories, where agencies control their diets, wardrobes, and social lives. The ‘Big 3’ companies, including SM Entertainment, are a notable exception, paying trainees as soon as they debut, but even their stars are not safe from the immense pressure of the industry. 

In late 2019, a few months after Parasite’s Cannes debut, South Korea received international media attention for the suicide of two beloved female K-pop stars in as many months. Choi Jin-Ri, a former member of girl group f(x), and Goo Hara, formerly of Kara, died within six weeks of each other after complaining of misogynistic cyberbullying. Idols are expected to walk the line between sexuality and schoolgirl innocence, embodying a highly manufactured, unimpeachable perfection which requires extreme dieting and cosmetic surgery. While idols’ public love lives must be squeaky clean, the industry has also been rocked by sexual coercion scandals.

The extreme commodification of K-pop can also take a toll on performers’ feelings of authenticity. The creative process is usually outsourced to the same Scandinavian songwriters responsible for Taylor Swift and Katy Perry hits; one Korean girl band’s EP was entirely produced by Skrillex. This vision of ‘Korean culture’ is largely a reflection of Western appetites, with the additional selling point of exoticism. In this sense, K-pop offers a fantasy vision of Korean culture, and especially Korean womanhood, engineered for maximum profit and efficiency. This representation- which invokes age-old orientalist tropes of sensuality and submissiveness- finds a counterpart to its inauthenticity in the opposing North Korean stereotype, depicted as recently as 2014’s The Interview.

Recalling his surprise at Parasite’s international success, Bong commented: “The film was just full of Korean details and Korean nuances. But (the responses were the same across the world). I think maybe there is no borderline between countries now because we all live in the same country- it’s called capitalism.” Parasite was both authentically Korean and universally relatable in its criticism of consumerism, class discrimination, and human greed. Rather than seeking to appeal to these forces, perhaps the K-pop industry could draw some inspiration from Bong’s success- using its platform to support more authentically Korean creativity in response to breakneck social change, within the country and across the world.