Student Life
‘There’s a difference between impartiality and neutrality’: Lewis Goodall on politics, podcasting, and the prime minister
Lewis Goodall is a very busy man. Between co-hosting the hit daily podcast The News Agents, starring in LBC’s flagship Sunday radioshow, and winning awards for exposing government cover-ups, the journalist and broadcaster has very little spare time. So I’m grateful when he squeezes in a half hour Zoom call with me in the middle of his work day. He may be on a break but he remains professional; his demeanour as we make small talk before the interview is the same as when he presents a podcast to millions of listeners. Energetic and conversational, you get the sense that he is always firing on all cylinders.
Goodall, aged just 36, has already had a distinguished career, being at the centre of what is often described as the ‘podcast revolution’ in British media. In 2022, Goodall left a prestigious job as policy editor of the BBC’s Newsnight in order to start The News Agents with veteran journalists Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel, a decision he says was regarded by many at the time as “a little fringe, a little eccentric”.
Nearly four years later, you can tell that he is happy with the gamble he made. In his view, not only have podcasts become “utterly central” to the way in which we consume news, but individual hosts “have become enormously influential, way more than a lot of legacy shows”. When you compare the dwindling viewership of Newsnight to the success of The News Agents, which boasts four million monthly listeners, it’s hard not to agree. Nonetheless, Goodall hasn’t entirely thrown his lot in with the ‘new media’ format. Regularly working with Sky and Channel 4, he keeps one foot firmly planted in the more traditional media world, giving him a unique vantage point from which to assess the shifting sands of British journalism.
Goodall, however, doesn’t view his career in terms of clear distinctions. “All these barriers between media are dissolving, integrating, coming to nothing”, he tells me. He points to the fact that podcasts are increasingly mimicking traditional news shows, with hosts shelling out enormous amounts to pay for cameras and professional studios. “Apple and Spotify, in the last three months, are moving to basically video-first platforms for podcasts”, he points out. “You’re watching TV news, it’s just taking a different form.”
To him, the key developments in the industry are less to do with the format, and more to do with the constant demand for news that social media has created. Instead of producing work for regularly scheduled deadlines, journalists now have to be constantly on it, ready with a special report or ‘emergency podcast’ whenever news breaks. “You are everything, everywhere, all at once”, he says. “That’s what modern media shows have to be. It means you have to have a visual offering, an audio offering, a social media offering in each and every direction, because it’s an utter competition for eyeballs in the attention economy in which we live.
“It’s exhausting, and it’s frustrating, and it’s relentless sometimes. But it’s also very exciting because we’re at a genuine moment of evolution in a media landscape which doesn’t come along very often.”
Goodall’s ability to be at ease with this rapid change is likely the product of having lived a life defined by seismic political and economic transformations. Goodall was raised by young parents on an estate in southwest Birmingham, experiencing a childhood shaped by de-industrialisation and the constant threatened closure of the Rover factory which employed his father. He was 7 when the Blair government came to power, ending 18 years of Tory dominance in British politics. For Goodall, this altered the direction of his life. Encouraged by Labour’s programme to increase the number of first-generation university students, he secured a place at Oxford University, studying History and Politics at St John’s College.
It’s clear that Goodall largely enjoyed his time at Oxford. “Look, as anyone who’s been there knows, it’s a deeply unusual place and a deeply unusual university experience”, he says. “There aren’t many times in your life where your job is to think about Thomas Hobbes, right? That’s a kind of really unique moment, which I realised about 18 months in, I think I enjoyed it a lot more when I did that.”
As was inevitable for a student from a working class background in the 2000s, Goodall encountered the prejudices of his more privileged peers. He recalls an instance where a “very charming guy” turned to him and declared “Oh Lewis, I love having you about. You’re the college’s bit of rough”. Goodall is remarkably relaxed about these run-ins, laughing the whole thing off: “That was the only time in my life, before or since, that I’ve ever been described as a bit of rough.”
If anything, Goodall’s background was a source of pride for him, rather than alienation. “I think what it gives you is just a license to be confident”, he reflects. “You’re gonna come across, both there and afterwards, some absolute chancers who, quite frankly, were it not for the circumstances of their birth, would probably not be where they were or are today.
“Sometimes they will realise where you’re from and try and intimidate you. I think, what Oxford does, it just gives you that iron clad confidence to be like: ‘No, I’m not going to be intimidated by you because I might not be where you’re from, but I’ve gotten where you’ve got to, at least on equal terms, if not actually with one hand behind my back’.”
After graduating in 2010, Goodall worked as a question writer for University Challenge, and then at the Institute for Public Policy Research, before landing a job at the BBC in 2012. He once again found himself at the centre of tumultuous change, as the BBC sought to get to grips with a news ecosystem being redefined by social media. “I remember when I started working in news because I was 24 and the editor was like: ‘So, I’ve done this thing called Facebook Live right? We thought maybe you could, like, be in charge of that.’”
So how exactly did these changes affect day to day reporting? “Without getting too History and Politics at Oxford about it, it’s just structure and agency”, he says. Social media, he recalls, enabled young reporters to build their own brand independent of their employers. “If I’d been a journalist 20 years before, and I wanted to do my story… I’d go through the processes. I’d pitch to my editor and then eventually the piece would appear on Newsnight. But of course, I was then coming through at a time where you were initially encouraged… to go directly to the viewers. So, by definition, you end up being more of a player and you yourself become part of discourse rather than the organisation you’re working for, who previously controlled all of that.”
After a while, he explains, the BBC sought to rein this in. Before long, Goodall found himself being called to meetings with higher-ups to discuss his social media presence. He tells a story of one instance in which he posted a run down about an election that had taken place in Norway and had to explain why he did so to his bosses. “I wasn’t being quizzed about the rights and wrongs of it, I doubt the BBC executive could even identify Norway on a map. It was more like, ‘why are you talking about that?’”
This is an issue which, to Goodall’s mind, the BBC still has not resolved. “Places like the BBC, they want to put the brand first, always. But people, intrinsically, for good or ill, when they’re going online now, look to individuals they identify with, and they like, and they respect. And the BBC, I think, in particular, has never been able to reconcile or find an accommodation between having those tall poppies, and letting them sit comfortably within the brand itself… My argument was always that organisations need to be able to harness that energy and harness that phenomenon, whether they like it or not.”
To Goodall, the BBC’s inability to get to grips with social media is an existential problem; one that reveals flaws in its model of impartiality. “I think these organisations have not thought enough about how to shift and change their journalism in this age in which everybody can have an opinion, in which everybody can complain to you absolutely instantly.” With the BBC, he says, “it became a question of ‘we need to manage perception’”, in which accusations of bias against reporters made on social media were automatically taken as valid, rather than investigated to see if they had any substance.
“There’s a difference between impartiality and neutrality. Anybody who is genuinely neutral is a block, you know, you’re brain dead. It would be bizarre if you went into journalism, particularly political journalism, to have no views, and no judgements about the political world around you. That makes you a worse journalist, a way worse journalist.”
As he speaks, Goodall becomes more and more animated, leaning into his laptop camera with his arms outstretched in front of him. It’s no wonder that his feelings are so strong on this matter, given the number of times he’s been at the centre of impartiality rows himself. Some of these were easily dismissed – he laughingly recalls when, while working at Sky News between 2016-2020, he was accused on social media of bias because he had served as a Youth Officer for the local Birmingham Labour Party when he was 15.
Others, however, were far more threatening to his career. In 2020, BBC board member and former conservative party communications chief Robbie Gibb publicly suggested that Goodall had a left-wing bias. Goodall clapped back, tweeting “thanks for this Robbie. Maybe one day, if I’m as impartial as you, I can get a knighthood too”. Goodall later stated that the failure of his editors to stand up for him, instead allegedly warning him to “be careful: Robbie is watching you”, motivated him to leave the BBC in 2022.
Our discussion comes only a few months after another impartiality controversy at the BBC, in which the BBC’s director general and as its head of news resigned after a memo by a former external advisor accusing the organisation of a left-wing bias was published in the press. I ask Goodall what he made of this episode, particularly in the light of his own experience at the organisation. To him, the BBC allows “impartiality to be a stick that is used to beat them, and they allow that because they basically subscribe to what I would describe as a completely hollow view of impartiality”.
He says that, during his time at the BBC, there was an obsession with the criticism coming from the right that “they were a bunch of liberal metropolitan elites or whatever. That was the bias of which they were most aware, and they were constantly guarding against. I can’t remember anybody being terribly worked up if we were being biased about the Green Party, or the Communist Party, or the Socialists, or whatever it happens to be”.
Goodall believes that the BBC continues to be far too deferential to criticisms levied at it in bad faith. “It got inside their heads far too successfully. They didn’t have a genuine theory of impartiality. Their theory of impartiality was defined by their worst enemies and continues to be. And guess what? They get no credit for that, none. Because their worst enemies continue to be their worst enemies. All day long.”
One gets the sense that Goodall could talk about this topic for hours, but with my allotted time fast running out, I steer the conversation towards another British institution which seems unable to adapt to a changing media landscape: the government. How well does he think the Labour Party has spread its message in the age of podcasts, reels, and social media? “I don’t think Labour have been very good at it partly because they’ve been worried about pissing off the newspapers too much”, he says. “I think it’s ridiculous, by the way, the power of the lobby and some of the established newspapers continues to be very strong, despite the fact that their readership has never been less.”
“For Labour, this current media environment actually should be a real opportunity for them”, he says. “Because one of Labour’s big structural problems historically has obviously been the dominance of the right wing press in British political media.” This, he argues, left them with two options: either reject it (à la Corbyn) or pander to it as Blair did, both of which have proved problematic in the past. “Now they’ve got a third option, which is that they can help create a new news ecosystem which is, if not more intrinsically favourable to them, at least less hostile to them… I have been surprised by how little those at the top of the Labour party, over the last couple of years, have been interested in developing that new media space to their benefit.”
This brings us to the topic of Goodall’s latest project; a Channel 4 documentary exploring why Keir Starmer’s government, less than two years after a historic landslide, is so unpopular. So, what exactly is it that interests Goodall so much about Starmer, a man that many describe as profoundly uninteresting? “I think there’s a sort of personal paradox… This is a man who’s reached the apex of our politics, who is clearly driven by a deep sense of personal ambition. And yet, he’s also a man who, in so many ways, I know this from personal conversations with him, loathes politics, abhors politics, is, in some ways, very anti-political.”
He points to the fact that even Morgan McSweeney, the former Downing Street Chief of Staff, supposedly could never reliably predict what Starmer’s thoughts on an issue would be, as a result of the prime minister’s lack of instinctual political beliefs. “That fascinates me. You have a man willing to make profound personal and familial sacrifices, because being Prime Minister is basically horrible, for all the glory of it, it’s basically vile, like day to day. So what sustains it? He’s a deeply unusual political figure, sphinx-like in that way.”
It is certainly an interesting time for this documentary to come out. Many had assumed that, in the absence of Starmer’s own political beliefs, that McSweeney was setting much of the policy direction of the government. But with Starmer’s right hand man booted out of No. 10 earlier this year, no-one is quite sure who is now setting the agenda. “There’s a horrible cliche in politics”, Goodall says, “which like most cliches in modern politics, basically comes from West Wing: ‘Now you can let Starmer be Starmer’.
“But that’s the question, is there a Starmer to be Starmer? Without getting too Shakespearean about it, is there an authentic, real Starmer? I think it remains to be seen, the extent to which he’s just going to be moulded again, or whether he’ll try and finally do the moulding.”
It’s hard to know how all the ongoing transformations that we have discussed will play out. Will the government take a new direction? How will the media landscape continue to evolve? Will broadcasters like the BBC adapt, or end up on the scrap heap? One thing, however, is clear: Lewis Goodall is no stranger to rapid change and, as ever, he plans to make the most of it.
‘Keir Starmer: where did it all go wrong?’ is available to watch now on Channel 4.
Student Life
My year of rest and rustication
I distinctly remember turning to my friend upon reading the 2024 Cherwell article on rustication and proudly claiming: “You know, I have never seriously considered rustication.” Lo and behold, my mental health had other plans. Thus, after a Trinity filled with multiple ‘Fitness to Study’ meetings – and much delusion on my side about my ability to continue my degree – I made the decision in the summer following my second year to take a year out of university. That decision happened almost a year ago. So as I now begin to prepare for my return to the gowns, essays, and bops that make up Oxford student life, I can’t help but look back. In doing so, I noticed that, before it concerned me, I never actually knew much about rustication. Of course, I knew of it – rustication is commonly joked about by students, for instance, when the thought of spending one more hour in the Glink becomes unbearable. But I never really knew the details. For me, rustication has always been something shrouded in mystery, with even the name itself being more intriguing than the reality of ‘taking a year out of university’. As a currently rusticated, soon to be returning student, this is my experience on what it is like to rusticate, and how to navigate the year ahead.
The first thing people might not know is how genuinely unspectacular the rustication process is. In my case, the build-up towards the decision, which involved multiple meetings with my Director of Studies (DoS) and college welfare staff, was much more complex than the actual step of rustication. In order to rusticate, I merely had to put a few lines together in an email stating that I would not be returning in Michaelmas. That’s all it took to suspend my studies. Once you have rusticated, there are certain rules you must follow. For instance, whilst you have access to Oxford’s libraries and SOLO, you are not allowed to be taught. The exact definition of what “being taught” actually entails is rather hazy, but it essentially meant that all preparation and revision I did was done by myself, and any essays I wrote were not allowed to be corrected. Yet this didn’t mean that my college left me out in the cold. My DoS was a godsend, and we had regular catch-ups to see how I was doing. My college, too, was very forthcoming and answered any practical questions I had. So, on the academic side, things went more or less as I expected.
What came as more of a shock to me, however, was the social aspect – or lack thereof – of rustication. Of course, I was aware that while I was away, the world would keep spinning and my friends would go on with their lives and graduate, but nobody can quite prepare you for what that actually feels like. Such an inexplicable feeling can only be explained metaphorically: I imagine myself and my friends on a train, one so fast moving that once I get off, everyone else keeps moving forward, and I can never quite catch them up. Although I anticipated the stationary, static nature of my year of rustication, I could not have foreseen the intensity of this. Rationally, you know that everyone’s lives move at different paces, but try watching everyone’s end-of-term photo ‘dumps’ whilst you are thousands of miles away without experiencing that nagging feeling of “I should be there with them.” One way I dealt with this aspect of rustication was by distancing myself. For me, this was simple, as I live abroad, so actually visiting Oxford was rather difficult anyway. However, in the age of Instagram highlights, physical distance does not necessarily mean that you will know less about what your friends are doing, without you, while you are away. So once everyone began studying for finals, I actively avoided social media, because I could not cope with seeing my friends graduate while I was still ‘stuck’ at home. To me, opening social media felt like the reality of rustication was being shoved down my throat: I am missing key moments with my friends.
That said, in hindsight, I do not believe that you should completely distance yourself from Oxford life during rustication. Even though they may be having a different experience to you, thousands of miles away, your friends at university are still your friends, and staying in contact is crucial. Ideals do not always translate into reality, though: staying in touch is tough. But even as an extreme extrovert, I found it incredibly difficult to reach out to my Oxford friends and, to be honest, I have a hard time explaining why. In rationalising my feelings, I think I was scared of being confronted with the fact I was not there. I was scared that phone calls with updates of college life would only increase my “I should be there with them” mentality. So I didn’t reach out. In retrospect, I think this was a big mistake.
When reaching out becomes a daunting task, it is incredibly beneficial to have friends who make that step for you and are the first to send the text or make the call. In this respect, my college wife proved to be amazing and I fully credit her for keeping our marriage alive this past year. It was she who made sure we kept in touch by actively scheduling weekly or bi-weekly calls. But what I am most grateful for is that she never spoke about university-related topics unprompted. It was only when I asked that she gave me details about her coursework, thesis research, and finals. It is difficult to articulate how these small acts ended up meaning so much to me. It meant I was able to chat about everything going on in our lives – dates, travels, drama – but I never had that “I should be there” feeling. University was not a taboo subject, but it was never the main topic. This, more than anything, helped me process the fact that my life was simply on a different timeline to hers, and to accept that there are now memories we do not share with each other. I guess, in a sense, this way of talking to my college wife gave me the closure I needed to start again next Michaelmas, without mourning the year I could have had.
This was one of the hardest parts about rustication and why it took me the entire summer to make my decision. I have always had a plan for my life and the fact that I was forced to take a step back from this was incredibly hard to deal with. More so, I mourned what I thought I had lost: my third year in Oxford, the times I could have spent with my friends, and the experiences we would have shared. The first loss is easier to overcome. While my year involved more therapy sessions and quiet dinners in front of the TV than tutorials and formals, I knew that I would be able to experience these upon my return. The fact that my group of friends would no longer be there to experience my final year with me was the real loss. A part of me thought that this lack of sharing milestones, like graduation, together would mean our bond would loosen and eventually break. But it was here that the calls with my college wife helped prove the opposite. By talking to her, I realised that the friendships you make at university are more than just experiencing the cult-like Oxford life together, and that they will last longer than it takes you to complete your degree – even if this is one year longer than planned.
Student Life
Academic tourism: Oxford University and its summer schools
“Join us for a study holiday in Oxford” invites Oxford Lifelong Learning. As anyone who has remained in Oxford over the long vacation knows, thousands take up the offer of a “study holiday” either at one of the University-run summer schools or with a private provider. Lanyards replace puffer jackets as these summer schools make use of university infrastructure to give guests a taste of the Oxford lifestyle. This academic tourism industry has a symbiotic relationship with the University, generating huge amounts of money for the institution and providing hundreds of temporary summer jobs. According to a freedom of information (FOI) request by Cherwell, Lifelong Learning’s three main summer schools had a total income of over £3.1 million last year.
The central question here concerns the University’s access aims. In its Access and Participation Plan, it acknowledges that “our main challenges are that many applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds are unable to achieve the school grades to make a competitive application, and that many perceive Oxford as a remote, very traditional university that is ‘not for them’”. These summer schools are only accessible to the very few. However, the jobs and income they generate for colleges and departments might help fund these access aims.
There is a varied scene. Private summer schools tend to operate along similar models. Hiring different venues from colleges and university departments, they construct a temporary ‘campus’ for the duration of the summer. Students might, for example, be housed in a Corpus Christi annexe before being taken to the Blavatnik School of Government for a class.
Most of the staff are temporary, but there is usually a full-time skeleton team conducting sales and planning for the following year. The temporary staff are often bod-card holders on their long vacation. Graduate students are handsomely rewarded for working as tutors on these summer schools, and undergraduates are employed to entertain and look after the children outside of their lessons. At Oxford Summer Courses, you can earn £577.16 per week as an ‘activity leader’, or if you are on or have finished a Master’s, up to £55 per hour as a ‘subject tutor’.
The names begin to sound slightly familiar: Oxford Summer Courses, Oxford Royale Academy, Oxford Scholastica Academy, Oxford Horizon Academy, Oxbridge Academic Programs, Oxford Scholars, The Oxford Institute, and Campus Oxford to name a handful. These courses are largely aimed at children. Prices at Oxford Summer Courses are typical, ranging from £5,495–£9,995 for two weeks in Oxford. The most expensive fee costs more than a year of home undergraduate tuition.
In the year to September 2024, Oxford Summer Courses had a total profit after taxation of £1,410,570. Oxford Summer Courses is a private company, so the University does not see this profit.
Andy Palmer, CEO of Oxford Royale, was keen to stress the value of private summer schools for the Oxford community. He told Cherwell: “We are a significant seasonal employer, taking on several hundred staff each summer, and over the years we have tried to put something back into Oxford and Oxfordshire.”
On the question of financial inaccessibility, he says that “since we founded in 2004 we have also funded scholarship and bursary places, many for students who could not otherwise have taken part — including free places for children affected by the war in Ukraine”. It is not clear how much these “scholarships and bursaries” are worth but 266 young people have been awarded them between 2008 and 2025. But this is still a tiny minority of their “50,000+ successful alumni” since the summer school began in 2004.
Oxford Scholastica Academy has a similar scheme that it calls OxBright Scholars. It described this to Cherwell as “an ongoing programme of support, which gives Scholars access to an expert subject Mentor, live weekly seminars, ongoing subject-specific mentoring and support, and cutting-edge content. It’s a long-term programme, designed specifically for the needs of students from less advantaged backgrounds in collaboration with our partner access charities like IntoUniversity and The Access Project who select the students. We currently have around 200 scholars on our programme”.
While the private market is huge, some university departments have joined in, running their own summer schools. The Saïd Business School youth programmes are the most striking example. They are explicitly advertised as “Oxford University youth programmes: Official summer schools for high school students (aged 15-18) run by Oxford University”. One of these programmes, The Future of Business Summer School, is two weeks long, and costs £8,995. As a department of the University, the business school can promise that “when you finish the programme, you will receive certification from the University of Oxford, a testament to your learning and achievements”.
Oxford Lifelong Learning (formerly the Department for Continuing Education) is another department of the University. This department’s mission is to “inspire people locally, nationally and globally by extending access to Oxford’s world-class teaching and resources through flexible and inclusive opportunities for study and research”. They claim their summer schools are part of this mission.
It sells two introductory-level summer schools: Inspiring Oxford (starting price over £1,800) and The Oxford Experience (starting price over £1,600). It also runs the undergraduate-level Oxford University Summer School for Adults (starting price over £1,300). These summer schools offer 1-week courses and accept only guests over 18.
For catering, accommodation, and teaching venues, Lifelong Learning hires Brasenose for Inspiring Oxford and Christ Church for The Oxford Experience. They use Rewley House, the department’s home on Wellington Square, as the venue for Oxford University Summer School for Adults.
The fact that all of Lifelong Learning’s summer schools are adult-only sets them apart from most other summer schools. This is, of course, much less problematic when it comes to the University’s access goals, as it is highly unlikely that adults on these courses will be prospective undergraduate applicants.
Dr Charles Boyle, Director for Professional and Open Access Courses, told Cherwell that profits from these summer schools “are regularly drawn upon to fund concessionary fees on hundreds of our open access and award-bearing courses and events”. In its 2023-24 Financial Statement, the University reported that “the Department’s turnover in 2023/24 was £25.5m, an increase of £4.2m compared to the previous year. This growth reflects continued expansion of Open Access courses, including summer schools”.
This industry is also exceptionally lucrative for colleges who house private or university summer schools. In 2024-25, Balliol’s total income from its conference business (“which welcomes summer schools and conferences”) was £2.9 million. This accounted for 6.6% of its income that year. Similarly, Lady Margaret Hall’s Conference and Short Academic Programmes had a turnover of £2.93m, 6.9% of its total income.
These summer schools also provide many current students with temporary summer jobs that conveniently coincide with vacation dates. According to a FOI request, Oxford Lifelong Learning employed 15 temporary staff members to work on its introductory and undergraduate-level summer schools. Each private summer school will likely be employing at least the same number.
When approached for comment, Oxford Scholastica Academy told Cherwell: “We hire undergraduates and graduates to help run our programme and to teach our students each summer, including a number from Oxford and Oxford Brookes. We also hire facilities like colleges for accommodation and classrooms, and work with lots of local suppliers, so most of our expenditure each summer goes back into the local community.”
However, the relationship between the summer schools and the University is not necessarily an easy one. In 2023, the University filed a case against Oxford Royale for trademark infringement, unhappy with the way the company was making money from the Oxford name. Surely, the fact that Oxford Royale is competing with the University’s own summer schools must play a part in this concern.
A more pressing question follows: are these summer schools falsely selling an ‘Oxford experience’? The University’s reputation is, of course, central to the success of these companies. Visit any of their websites, and you will be greeted with sun-soaked pictures of the Radcliffe Camera, and book-laden students having fun against college backdrops.
Similarly, the logos of Campus Oxford, Oxford Royale, Oxford Horizon Academy, and The Oxford Institute all include the Radcliffe Camera as the central image. The latter three also use a colour very close to Oxford blue, and Oxford Royale’s even features a scroll at the centre with a motto (they have at least saved us the job of Google translating back from Latin): “Learn to Travel: Travel to Learn”. Perhaps it is no wonder the University filed for trademark infringement.
Most of these summer schools feel like strange, distorted echoes of Oxford life. Depending on the company, students might enjoy classes in an Oxford faculty building or an Oxford college, with teachers given the title ‘tutor’. At weekends, activities might range from a dress-up ‘ball’ on a Salter Steamers to a Ceilidh in a city venue; from strictly supervised punting to brunch in an Oxford college. Many summer schools then hold a ‘graduation’ and some, including Oxford Summer Courses, Oxford Scholastica Academy, and Oxford Horizon Academy, give students a ‘letter of recommendation’.
These letters of recommendation raise difficult ethical questions. If the summer schools do help students gain admissions into the University, they would sit uncomfortably with Oxford’s aims of widening socio-economic access. If they do not, then do these families truly understand what they are paying for?
The private summer schools cater to an exceptionally wealthy, often international market, and some, including Oxford Horizon Academy and Oxford Scholastica Academy, run university admissions talks to help their customers make strong university applications.
Oxford Scholastica Academy told Cherwell: “We are independent of Oxford University … From the start, we’ve always been keen that no student could think we are affiliated with the university.” A disclaimer on their website clarifies that “Oxford Scholastica is not formally connected with or endorsed by the University, and it’s important to understand that we don’t offer university preparation courses”.
Similarly, Oxford Horizon Academy published an article on Saturday 3rd April, ‘Does a Summer School Help Your University Application?’. They are honest with the issue: “A summer school on its own is not a magic credential.” But they continue that “a well-chosen summer school gives you material. If you spend two weeks studying law at Oxford, engaging with real cases, arguing in moot courts, and grappling with questions about justice and rights, you have something specific to write about”. While the promise of “studying law at Oxford” is technically true, that little preposition is undeniably cheeky. In Oxford would surely be more apt for this situation; “at Oxford” certainly seems to imply the University.
But perhaps the content is more alarming. If you attend this summer school, they seem to say, you will have the material to make a stronger Oxford application. I am sure this is true. Surely, a student who has been given access to Oxford students, which the summer schools are employing, and access to valuable, well-curated information and advice will find it significantly easier to make a competitive application.
The article goes on: “The letter of recommendation matters too. At Oxford Horizon Academy, students receive a letter of recommendation from their academic instructor. A letter from someone who taught you in a rigorous academic setting, who can speak specifically to your intellectual curiosity and potential, carries genuine value.”
Who does this matter to? One would hope that a reference from an actual schoolteacher who has known you for more than two weeks would carry more weight. Yet this suggests it is the Oxford Horizon Academy name which is carrying the real weight. As wonderful as the latter two words sound individually, it does seem that “Oxford” is doing the heavy lifting. Is it more problematic to think that families at this summer school are being mis-sold an experience or that they are genuinely managing to buy access – access either to the use of the Oxford name, or into the University itself? Indeed, there is also a concern that some prospective applicants who cannot afford to attend a summer school might, from a cursory glance at advertising like this, get the sense that experience like this is necessary to make a competitive application.
Certainly, scholarships like those run by Oxford Royale and Oxford Scholastica widen this opportunity to a lucky few who could not otherwise afford it. Indeed, some would argue that with private schools and private admissions tutoring, there is plenty of opportunity for those who can pay to get a leg up. But unlike private schools or private tutoring, these summer schools could not run without the cooperation of Oxford colleges and departments.
While in the case of private summer schools the line is blurry, with the Saïd Business School youth programmes it is made starkly clear. The business school promises young people aged 15-18 certification from the university if they pay to attend. It is unclear what the status of this certification is, but what is undeniable is that the University of Oxford name is being used to give young children who can pay for it a step up. It could be argued that if all of the private summer schools are profiting off the University’s reputation, departments might as well engage in the industry directly. But it is rather remarkable that it is a University department that is the most explicit in selling young students – potential applicants – certification from the University.
This hugely profitable industry is a crucial part of many colleges’ funding models. But the access and participation aims of the University seem to run counter to an education industry where access can be bought. But at the same time, this academic tourism industry might help fund these very access aims. As the students move out, and customers move in this summer, we need an honest conversation about how this academic tourism industry underpins and affects the University’s aims.
When approached for comment, a spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “Oxford is committed to widening access and attracting and admitting students with the highest academic potential from all backgrounds to undergraduate and graduate study. The University invests significantly in outreach and access initiatives for students from backgrounds that are under-represented at Oxford. Our Access and Participation Plan, approved by the Office for Students, sets out how we will build on this work at undergraduate level, and last year Oxford approved its first University-wide Graduate Student Access Strategy. A core part of this commitment is UNIQ, the University’s flagship undergraduate outreach programme. Since 2010, UNIQ has provided an opportunity for UK state-school students with high academic potential to explore higher education and learn more about studying at Oxford. The free programme prioritises students from under-represented educational and socioeconomic backgrounds and includes a subject-specific residential experience. Around 3,300 students take part in UNIQ each year. Oxford admissions are based on academic merit and potential; summer programmes are entirely separate to the University’s undergraduate and graduate admissions processes.”
A representative of Oxford Scholastica, when asked about affiliation to the University, told Cherwell: “We make it clear we’re not affiliated with Oxford University, our mission (to help students seize the future) is distinct from the city and our brand is independent from the university. My co-founder and I set up OSA in Oxford because it’s been our home for most of our lives, having lived and attended school in the city.”
Regarding letters of recommendation, they told Cherwell: “Our pupils are typically international teenagers who go on to attend universities outside the UK. Unlike British universities, universities abroad tend to ask for multiple ‘letters of recommendation’ from a range of sources. Our teachers write such letters for students who impress us, which they can upload to, for example, the Common App application process for US universities (the USA is the most common university destination for our students).”
Oxford Horizon Academy, Oxford Summer Courses, and Oxford Royale were also contacted for comment
Student Life
Balanced by whose standards? Challenging the Pinsker Centre’s Israel policy trips
On 6th June, The Telegraph published an article outlining the abuse and criticism faced by Ben Ashworth, an Oxford University and Oxford Union member, over his visit to Israel. The article describes the trip as “a fact-finding trip to better understand the Gaza conflict”. A closer examination of the trip itinerary, however, tells a different story.
The Pinsker Centre describes itself as “a non-partisan think tank focusing on global foreign policy, especially the Middle East”. It provides free “Israel Policy Trips” to Oxford and Cambridge students to “learn about one of the most complex geopolitical conflicts in the world from a balanced, non-partisan policy perspective”.
However, the Centre was originally founded under a different name, “the Pinsker Centre for Zionist Education”. In an article written for Jewish News in 2016, one of the Centre’s founders described it as “an initiative of students who want to change the discourse around Israel on campus”. Another co-founder referred to it as a Zionist organisation leading trips to Israel for students from diverse backgrounds.
The organisation’s origins do not necessarily determine its operations today, but do challenge the claim they are a neutral entity by self-defining as “non-partisan.”
In continuation of this point, understanding contested conflict is highly dependent on who is chosen to explain it.
On social media, the Pinsker Centre says that participants met with President Isaac Herzog, Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel and Meirav Leshem Gonen as well as Palestinian voices like Rami Nazzal and John Munayer.
It is not fundamentally objectionable for students to meet senior politicians; access to decision-makers can be educational.
However, when a trip presents itself as politically balanced whilst prominently featuring senior members of a government accused of war crimes, the claim deserves scrutiny.
Herzog is not an academic like John Munayer, but the president of Israel. In September 2025, the UN Human Rights Council legal analysis concluded that the Israeli president “incited the commission of genocide” following comments made after the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.
The report cites his statement that: “it’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians who were not aware and not involved. It is absolutely not true.”
Similarly, Sharren Haskel is not a journalist and tour guide company owner like Rami Nazzal, but a senior member of the Israeli government.
Their inclusion as speakers challenges any claim of a balanced fact-finding trip.
Yet perhaps the most striking omission from the article is not who the students met, but where they went.
The Pinsker Centre’s own itinerary states that the trip included a visit to the Golan Heights. The article made no mention of this, and instead readers are left with the impression that the trip consisted of a visit to Israel proper only.
The Golan Heights is not just another stop on an itinerary because its status remains disputed under international law. Notably, the UK has never recognised Israel’s annexation of the Heights, whilst Human Rights Watch have criticised Israeli government plans to expand settlements into the occupied territory. Under Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, an occupying power deporting or transferring part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime. Subsequently, for Syrians, the Golan Heights remains a symbol of occupation and displacement. Clearly geography is not politically neutral.
To describe the delegation as a visit to Israel whilst omitting the inclusion of the Golan Heights removes an important aspect of the political landscape the students were invited to encounter.
No delegation can represent every Israeli and Palestinian perspective. How these choices were presented is therefore a greater issue than the fact that these choices were made at all.
Such a carefully curated programme shapes participants’ understandings of the conflict. To curate the trip, the Pinsker Centre had to choose which voices to elevate. This is an inherently political process.
The article is right to condemn a number of antisemitic incidents. Such abuse deserves unequivocal condemnation. Of course, criticism of the Israeli state can become antisemitic in conflating Jewish identity with Israeli state actors. Holding Jews as collectively responsible for the actions of Israel is antisemitic; such discrimination is completely unacceptable.
At the same time, criticism of political institutions, governments and political delegations in Israel is not automatically equivalent to hostility towards Jewish people. Israel is often presented by Western governments as the Middle East’s sole liberal democracy. If that is the claim, then its institutions and representatives must be subjected to the same scrutiny that forms a pillar of democracy. Either way, this characterisation is difficult to reconcile with the occupation, disenfranchisement and, discrimination of millions of Palestinians under Israeli control.
Conflating fairly made criticism of the Pinsker Centre’s itinerary with antisemitism weakens our ability to identify and confront genuine discrimination.
In the midst of one of the most controversial military campaigns of the century, described as genocide by the International Association of Genocide Scholars and an independent United Nations commission of inquiry, it is entirely legitimate to ask whether a fully funded delegation to Israel can ever be considered a politically neutral educational exercise.
It should concern us all that The Telegraph represented the trip as a politically neutral fact-finding mission while omitting important context about its itinerary and speaker selection. Readers should be given sufficient context to assess claims of balance and neutrality for themselves. The free press exists as a tool to scrutinise those with power and influence, not stifle dissenting opinions.
Students can gain a lot from visiting Israel, Palestine, and the wider region. But when a fully funded delegation to Israel claims to be a non-partisan, balanced guide to one of the world’s most contested conflicts, those claims should be subject to careful scrutiny.
When contacted for comment, the Pinsker Centre said:
“Our trips are non-partisan educational programmes that enable students to engage directly with the complexities of the region through first-hand observation and discussion. Programmes have included meetings with senior Israelis as well as prominent Palestinian political figures, such as Dr Mustafa Barghouti. The inclusion of speakers with widely differing, and often opposing, viewpoints is intended to inform students’ understanding of the issues rather than promote any particular position. Where the itinerary includes places with contested legal or political status, those issues are presented and discussed. Visiting such locations is an important part of understanding the lived experience of Palestinians, including the humanitarian and human rights issues frequently discussed in connection with the conflict. Such visits are educational in nature.“
-
Business & Technology3 weeks agoHSBC UK & Visa test AI shopping with live payments
-
Business & Technology3 weeks agoValarian lands USD $50 million backing for sovereign AI
-
Business & Technology4 weeks agoMouser warns against viral hacks to cool overheating phones
-
Oxford News4 weeks agoNew romantasy bookshop attracts queues of customers
-
Business & Technology4 weeks agoSNP & Palantir launch AI tools for SAP transformations
-
Business & Technology4 weeks agoKane tops England influencer rankings after Mexico win
-
Traffic & Transport4 weeks ago‘I felt my spine and body split’: the woman who was hit by a child on a Lime bike – and denied compensation | Ebikes
-
Oxford News4 weeks agoDWP now checking bank accounts for Universal Credit and Pension Credit
