The Student Room Logo
This thread is closed

Oxford Gossip...

Scroll to see replies

Might do. Did it last year, got dicked on by some Maths Dr from Worcester. Who, if I remember rightly, uses TSR.
Reply 261
2 5 +
Might do. Did it last year, got dicked on by some Maths Dr from Worcester. Who, if I remember rightly, uses TSR.

Not Dr Richard Earl? He's the only Worcester maths guy I know of, but he seems exactly the type of guy who would enter a pool tournament. I suck pretty hard at pool but I can't really see a downside to entering, it's all good practice.
Exactly the man. He's bloody good at it, still good fun, though. Though if you get drawn against OUPC types it won't be so much fun, they take it far too seriously.
Reply 263
I liked the Bowden column today.
I liked the Bowden column today.

The Cherwell comments would again indicate that you're the only one...
Reply 265
I didn't like this week's column particularly (sorry, it's just not a funny topic), but I enjoyed the one you wrote a couple of weeks ago about that poor bastard whose memory was degraded by posthumous Facebook association with Mr. Blobby. Are you actually going to take the Cherwell comments on board and modify your writing style?
TBH it's hard to take these kinds of comments seriously. Write something with a cogent, logically-backed argument all the way through, and there's very little room in 450 words to make it anything other than boring comment-section rubbish. Write something a bit further from logic, and you're a "****e journalist". Write something about Oxford, and you're dangerously close to being a "Ask Doctor Proctor" compendium of Oxford clichés. Write something a bit more general, and it's "irrelevant". And if you put anything on the Cherwell website, you're bound to have it slated by a cabal of OxStu sub-eds who have the site bookmarked, and rarely have a compliment for anything. The hecklers, as it were.

If this term's reaction's taught me anything, it's that you can't please everyone - and in fact, there's pretty extreme opposite reactions to stuff (the Gays piece got me rep on TSR a couple of days back out of nowhere, cf the Cherwell comment calling it "terrible, terrible, terrible"). So, yeah, changing the style might harm more than it helps.

Reply 267
Funny you should put that quote in - your writing reminds me of Charlie Brooker's, a lot. I guess you get that comparison often, then?

No matter what people think of you, at least nobody could accuse you of spouting samey Oxford cliché crap. And even if your column sometimes really pisses me off, it's at least more interesting than that crap they had a couple of terms ago - that Diary of an Oxford Scuzz or whatever it was called (which was technically very proficient, but I really detested the actual story).
Reply 268
2 5 +
The Cherwell comments would again indicate that you're the only one...

I quite enjoyed it too, laughed out loud a couple of times, which is high praise. Loved the second to last paragraph though:

"Ironically enough, the Union said Langham was originally scheduled to speak about his ‘vilification in the media.’ Then they cancelled the event after he was, er, vilified in the media. Surely that just gave him more to say? There’s also the further irony of axing a debate society speech over ‘controversy’: isn’t that what a debating society’s for? Get a thesaurus, look up ‘debate’ you get ‘controversy’. You can’t have too much. You might as well cancel surfing due to a waterlogged sea."

Great stuff.
Reply 269
2 5 +
The hecklers, as it were.

Great writing accommodates the antiphonal voice of the heckler. I mean this as more than an afterdinner mot, but I'm busy preparing to **** schools up.
Reply 270
I love that there's a row of fit faces, then yours. (Sir, no offence.) The girls weren't so fit in other weeks.
Anyone fancy compiling "The **** List" this year?
Reply 272
And what about Hacks' Results - though, bloody hell, a lot of hacks get Firsts, don't they? So it wouldn't be a very interesting list. I've only noticed two hacks with 2.2s thus far...
Who are they? I only noticed C. Penny by chance looking for Historians.

EDIT: I didn't laugh, or nothing, honest.
Reply 274
I'll drop you a PM...
Reply 275
I can think of a few people I'd put on with 2.2s...
Reply 277
Wow, Dan Ward actually sat his exams.
Reply 278

That's a really interesting article - thanks for the link. Not directly relevant to me, since getting a mean mark ~2% higher than yours apparently makes me somehow a class above you :rolleyes:, but interesting - I've always thought it's silly of universities to impose any kind of cut-off, seeing as a candidate who got a 2.2 from Oxford would probably have managed a 2.1 at a 'lesser' university - using a 2.1 as the gold standard seems to penalise people for being near the bottom of an excellent cohort, which doesn't seem fair.

When did the whole "2.1 = ESSENTIALWEAR" thing happen, anyway? My dad got a 2.2 in Politics from a mediocre university and managed to get a reasonably good job, back in the early 70s, and I have plenty of friends whose mums and dads tell a similar story.
Reply 279
Yup, I know someone with a 2.2 from Oxford, a publishing and journalism career, and a Hollywood film deal (and that's just someone I know personally, not the likes of Phillip Pullman).