Student Life
‘The only woman in Hall’: Gender and college governance
When Baroness Alexandra Freeman became Principal of Hertford College last month, she did not initially realise she was the first woman to hold the role. It was a detail that, she says, came as a surprise, given that Hertford had begun admitting women in 1974, amongst the earliest of the formerly all-male colleges to do so. The significance of this fact has emerged gradually since. At one of her first gaudy dinners, she hosted some of the college’s first female students, including its first female JCR President. “I was really surprised how much it meant to them to have a female Principal”, she reflects. “More than one said that they had wondered whether it would happen in their lifetime.”
That sense of something both long overdue and yet only newly realised runs through Oxford’s recent shift in college leadership. Women now make up 47% of Heads of House, a figure that would have been difficult to imagine even a generation ago, and the University itself is led by a female Vice-Chancellor. At a glance, the change appears to be substantial. But it isn’t evenly distributed. 13 colleges have never had a female Head. Nine current Heads are the first women to hold their roles. And among the Permanent Private Halls, there has yet to be a single female Head. The result is a pattern that feels less like a clean transition into the modern day but rather a series of staggered steps, shaped by the histories of the individual institutions.
Timelines and trends
The emergence of women in senior college leadership is, in many ways, a recent phenomenon, best understood by considering the long individual institutional histories of each college. Women’s colleges have, unsurprisingly, a long history of women in senior leadership roles from their founding, with male heads historically the exception rather than the norm. St Anne’s and St Hilda’s, for example, have both only ever had one male Principal. Lady Margaret Hall’s first male Principal, Duncan Stewart, took the position the same year that the college became co-educational.
In most other colleges, however, many of the first female Heads were only appointed towards the end of the 2010s, with 13 colleges appointing their first female Heads since 2015, as though the University as a whole is, belatedly, catching up with itself. While most male colleges started to admit women in the 1970s, changes in gender inclusivity have been gradual, often just layered onto existing structures. Colleges admitted women as students, gradually appointed women as fellows, and at last saw these changes reflected at the level of leadership. The delay between these stages can’t be ignored and highlights just how much historical influences and entrenched norms still shape colleges today. This can also help explain why colleges like Hertford, early adopters of co-education, have nonetheless only recently appointed their first female Heads.
But this acceleration hasn’t produced uniformity. Some colleges, such as Mansfield, have moved quickly, appointing multiple female Heads in succession. Others have yet to appoint one at all. Despite being amongst the first male colleges to go co-ed, Wadham has never been led by a woman. Brasenose and Jesus have only just appointed women as their Heads of House, both of whom will take up their roles later this year.
The persistence of the ‘first woman’ phenomenon is revealing. These appointments are often framed as milestones; celebrated by colleges as markers of progress that signal a break with the past. But they also point to how long that break has taken, and how dependent it remains on the particular trajectories of individual colleges.
Yet these appointments also reflect larger trends within the university culture. The fact that the initial appointment of women to these roles is clustered, for instance, suggests that many colleges may be attempting to keep pace with one another. The growth in leadership inclusivity during the late 2010s also means that many of the first female Heads of House faced the additional challenge of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dinah Rose, President of Magdalen College, described as “tough for everyone” regardless of gender.
These changes also illustrate broader societal trends in women’s professional leadership in academia and beyond. These changes have also resulted in the way in which women hold themselves in positions of power. Rose noticed these shifts firsthand: “In earlier years, [women] often adopted a rather stiff and formal persona, perhaps compensating for some anxiety about whether they’d be accepted in their role. It is a joy to me now to be friends with a number of senior women who are funny, irreverent and relaxed, as well as being brilliant and accomplished. It seems to me that they own the space of leadership in a way that was more difficult for an earlier generation.”
The appointment
These patterns are shaped, in part, by how Heads of House are selected. Most rely on internal elections among fellows, others on appointment processes involving the University Council, and in certain cases – most notably at Christ Church – the position is decided by an external authority. The Dean of Christ Church is appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister.
In theory, the internal election approach is a more democratic form of governance, but in practice, it can often reproduce the existing imbalances which have become deeply embedded within higher education. Fellows – often the group responsible for electing Heads – remain disproportionately male in many colleges. At Balliol, for example, whose first female Master, Dame Helen Ghosh, took up the post in April 2018 and remains in the role today, less than a quarter of fellows are women. Similarly, at Jesus College, whose first female principal will assume the role this August, less than a third of the Governing Body are women. Where leadership is determined internally, it is perhaps unsurprising that outcomes tend to reflect these underlying demographics.
This is not necessarily the result of explicit bias. Instead, it is perhaps better understood as a form of pipeline inequality, where imbalances in representation at junior levels accumulate, resulting in a lack of diversity in senior leadership. Academic career progression, fellowship appointments, and informal networks all play a role in shaping this pipeline. In many cases, these dynamics are subtle: the product of long-standing imbalances, uneven progression rates, and the weight often placed on particular forms of academic experience or institutional familiarity.
The result is a landscape in which progress depends less on overarching institutional reform than on the internal dynamics of individual colleges. Even where colleges attempted to widen the field, appointments remain shaped by internal culture as much as formal criteria. As Helen King, Principal of St Anne’s, notes, each college brings its own “personality and values and history” to the process, with governing bodies weighing candidates differently depending on what they see as most important at a given moment. Whilst search processes – often outsourced to headhunting agencies – may begin with a broad pool, decisions are ultimately made within comparatively small groups, drawing on shared understandings – both explicit and implicit – of what leadership should look like.
King is cautious about drawing firm conclusions from this, emphasising the complexity of the system itself. Fellows, she says, approach these decisions with a strong sense of responsibility, weighing a range of factors. “Different fellows put different weights on different things”, she explains – whether that is academic record, leadership experience, or the ability to represent the college’s identity. But that breadth of consideration also means that no single factor – including diversity – is ever likely to be decisive on its own.
What’s in a name?
Language offers another window into these dynamics. Across Oxford, the titles given to Heads of House vary widely: from Warden to Provost, Master to Principal, and President to Dean. Whilst these distinctions often appear superficial and ceremonial, they reflect deeper histories of authority and institutional identity.
Older colleges tend to retain titles such as ‘Warden’ or ‘Provost’ whilst newer or reformed colleges have tended to adopt terms like ‘Principal’ or ‘President’. The variety of Oxford college titles is particularly notable, as 20 of the 31 colleges at Cambridge use the term ‘Master’ to describe the Head of the college. The only college in the Oxbridge system to use a title that is gendered feminine is Girton College at Cambridge, which has used the title ‘Mistress’ since the college was founded in 1869.
Issues of language extend beyond titles themselves. In some college statutes, such as those of Keble College, the Head is still referred to using explicitly male pronouns. Elsewhere, especially amongst former women’s colleges, the reverse pattern is clear with female pronouns regularly used as the default in these governance documents. While subtle, the use of gendered pronouns may change the way students and faculty of colleges understand how accessible leadership pathways may be to them.
At the same time, it is also notable that simply having more gender-inclusive titles does not always correlate to actual gender inclusivity in appointments. For instance, of the eleven colleges that have never appointed female Heads, only one uses the gendered title of ‘Master’. At Cambridge, where the term ‘Master’ is used much more often, there also does not seem to be a significant practical connection between the gender of the title and the gender of the title holder. This is not to suggest that the title of leadership roles is unimportant, but it does appear that, in practice, the gendering of a title may not limit the gender of the appointee.
Lived experience
These historical contexts can often be highly significant in determining the experience of current-day female Heads – although the wider picture remains more nuanced. Freeman notes that even before taking up her role, she had “already heard stories” of discrimination within the university. Rose, in comparison, suggested that leading a college represents, in some respects, a “refreshing change” from other institutional environments, noting particularly her previous experience as a barrister in which she was “conscious of the need to establish my credibility in court in ways that men don’t have to”.
Professor Lady Sue Black, President of St John’s College, described Oxford as “a good standard for other institutions” as women have many roles in senior leadership within colleges and across the university. However, Oxford lags slightly behind Cambridge, where only 5 out of the 31 colleges have never had a female Head, about 16%. Rose also noted that her position as a female Head of a formerly all-male college puts her in “some striking situations” such as when she “presid[ed] over an all-male gaudy of alumni who matriculated before the College became co-educational in 1979. On at least one occasion, I was the only woman in Hall, apart from members of the choir and the serving staff”.
An ongoing process
Viewed in isolation, the rise in female Heads of House suggests meaningful progress – compared to even just a decade ago, the landscape has changed significantly. Fundamentally, women are no longer the exceptions with college leadership in the way that they once were. And yet, the persistence of the ‘first woman’ phenomenon points to a process that’s still largely incomplete, with around a quarter of colleges having never appointed a woman as Head. Oxford also has yet to appoint a female Chancellor – a reminder that some of its most visible positions of authority remain shaped by tradition.
This unevenness is also visible beyond gender. Whilst the number of women in leadership has increased, progress across other forms of representation, such as ethnicity and religion, remains limited. Baroness Valerie Amos became the first-ever Black head of an Oxford college upon her appointment as Master of University College in September 2020. She remains the only Black Head of House to have ever led an Oxford college.
At the same time, the positive changes in the inclusion of female Heads speak to what Professor Dame Julia Black, Warden at Nuffield College, describes as a “transformed” landscape for women in leadership roles. Speaking about the entirety of her professional career in academia, Black also emphasised that the shifts in inclusion are also highly intentional: “This change hasn’t happened by accident, however, but is the result of a concerted effort by an extraordinary number of people in multiple sectors over a long period of time. So it’s essential to keep supporting women to be successful leaders.”
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 & Technology4 weeks agoMouser warns against viral hacks to cool overheating phones
-
Business & Technology3 weeks agoValarian lands USD $50 million backing for sovereign AI
-
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
