“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 3^rd 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

On 6^th 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.“

CS2 skins are cosmetic items, but the market around them behaves like a real digital economy. Players buy, sell, collect, trade, and track weapon finishes whose prices can range from a few cents to hundreds of thousands of dollars. That has created growing interest in CS2 skins as an investment.

The idea is simple: buy a skin, case, sticker, or other item at one price and sell it later for more. In practice, however, making money is much harder. Players who want to sell CS2 skins for profit need to consider supply, demand, rarity, weapon popularity, float, pattern, stickers, market liquidity, Valve updates, and the platform used to sell.

A successful CS2 skin investment requires research, patience, and risk control. Skins can increase in value, but they are not regulated financial products and do not guarantee returns.

Can you actually make money trading CS2 skins?

Yes, some players make money through virtual item trading, but profit is never automatic.

A trader can earn money by:

• Buying items below their usual market value;
• Holding discontinued or limited-supply items;
• Identifying skins with growing demand;
• Trading rare floats or patterns;
• Buying older cases before supply becomes more limited;
• Selling after a price increase;
• Finding undervalued sticker crafts;
• Using price differences between marketplaces.

The difficult part is that every transaction includes risk. A skin can increase in value, remain unchanged for years, or lose demand. Even when the visible price rises, fees and cash-out discounts can reduce the real profit.

For example, buying a skin for $100 and later seeing listings at $130 does not automatically mean a $30 profit. The item still needs a buyer, and the seller may pay marketplace fees or accept a lower cash price.

Why do CS2 skins have value?

Skins do not increase damage, accuracy, movement speed, or recoil control. Their value comes from scarcity, appearance, demand, and collectibility.

The main price factors are:

• Rarity grade;
• Weapon popularity;
• Case or collection supply;
• Exterior condition;
• Float value;
• StatTrak availability;
• Pattern index;
• Stickers;
• Professional esports exposure;
• Collector demand;
• Trading volume.

A popular AK-47 skin can have stronger demand than a similarly rare skin for a weapon that few players use. This is why rarity alone does not determine price.

The CS2 skin market values both scarcity and visibility. Players are often willing to pay more for items they will see frequently during matches.

Rarity does not always mean profitability

Counter-Strike uses rarity tiers such as Consumer, Industrial, Mil-Spec, Restricted, Classified, and Covert. Knives and gloves belong to special rare item categories.

Higher rarity usually means lower supply, but it does not guarantee higher returns. A Covert skin can perform poorly if demand is weak, while an older Restricted skin can rise because its collection becomes difficult to obtain.

Investors should study:

• How many items are available;
• Whether the case still drops;
• How often the skin sells;
• Whether demand is increasing;
• Whether the current price reflects real sales.

A rare item with no buyers can be difficult to sell. Liquidity matters as much as scarcity.

CS2 skin liquidity: why it matters

Liquidity describes how easily an item can be sold without reducing the price heavily.

Popular skins for AK-47, AWP, M4A1-S, M4A4, USP-S, Glock-18, knives, and gloves usually attract more buyers. That can make pricing easier and reduce the time needed to sell.

Less popular skins may show high listing prices but have low sales volume. In that situation, the seller may need to wait or lower the price.

Before investing in CS2 skins, check:

• Recent sales;
• Number of active listings;
• Buy orders;
• Price spread;
• Sales frequency;
• Cash-out value.

A liquid skin can sometimes be a safer choice than an extremely rare item with very few potential buyers.

Float and exterior condition

Every weapon skin has a float value within a defined range. Float affects the exterior condition:

• Factory New;
• Minimal Wear;
• Field-Tested;
• Well-Worn;
• Battle-Scarred.

Lower float often means less visible wear, but the effect depends on the skin. Some designs remain attractive in Field-Tested condition, while others lose important details.

Special float values can receive collector premiums. An extremely low Factory New float or unusually high Battle-Scarred float may be worth more than a standard item.

However, rare float does not guarantee profit. The seller still needs to find a buyer who understands why the item is special.

Pattern index and rare variations

Some finishes change significantly depending on pattern index.

AK-47 | Case Hardened is one of the best-known examples. Its surface can show different combinations of blue, gold, and purple. Blue-heavy patterns, known as Blue Gems, can sell for much more than ordinary versions, so players who plan to buy CS2 skins from this category should always check the pattern index, float, and recent comparable sales before making a purchase.

Pattern investing requires specialist knowledge. Two skins with the same name, exterior, and rarity can have completely different values because of pattern placement.

Before buying a pattern-based skin, check:

• Exact pattern index;
• Visible pattern placement;
• Comparable sales;
• Collector demand;
• Specialist price references.

Do not assume that every Case Hardened item is a valuable Blue Gem.

Stickers and crafts

Stickers can increase the value of a skin, especially rare tournament stickers such as Katowice 2014 Holos. But sticker value is complicated.

A sticker applied to a weapon usually does not add its full unapplied value. The premium depends on:

• Sticker rarity;
• Placement;
• Number of matching stickers;
• Visual combination;
• Weapon popularity;
• Collector interest.

A four-sticker craft may attract a large premium, but a random collection of expensive stickers can be difficult to price.

Conclusion

CS2 skins as an investment can generate profit, but success depends on knowledge, timing, liquidity, fees, and risk management. The CS2 skin market rewards players who understand rarity, float, patterns, stickers, collection supply, and real transaction prices.