Students at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, have learnt that they will join the nation’s revellers in taking a day off for the Royal Wedding. But it’s not all balloons and bunting – they will have to return two days early from their easter vacation to take Trinity Collections (that’s mock exams at the start of summer, or “Trinity”, term to the likes of you and me).
Prince William and Kate Middleton are due to wed on Friday 29th April – the same date the university had earmarked for the Trinity collections. The original return date for students was Thursday 28th April, but with exams moved forward to Wednesday and Thursday, students will now be expected to arrive at college on the Tuesday, requiring some to cut short their holiday plans.
In an email sent to students from a senior tutor, it was explained that exams would no longer be held on the date of the nuptials, in order “to allow loyal subjects to celebrate the royal wedding.”
Corpus Christi JCR President Jack Evans told Oxford’s Cherwell that, as Oxford students are allowed to observe relatively few bank holidays, they will be pushing the boat out for the celebrations.
“The plans are confidential for the moment “but I can tell you that they will be tortoise-related,” Evans declared. When did we last have a tortoise party at York, I ask you? Buck up your ideas, JCRC Chairs!
But while royalists and college officials may be excited by the news, the same is not true for all students. One Corpus student, Sam Kelly, described the news as just “yet another argument for Republicanism.”
Meanwhile, second year English student Sophie FitzMaurice, told the Oxford Student that she was outraged that her work had been disrupted by “the wedding of a boy who was born with the privilege of not having to do any.”
That’ll just be the one Master of Arts degree with the highest honour of any heir to the British throne, and a graduation from the Defence Helicopter Flying School then. But then again, he never went to Oxford…
Maddy Potts,
Firstly, Sophie FitzMaurice doesn’t study English, she studies History. Secondly, she didn’t say that (and the article makes this pretty clear) – I did, though I remained anonymous when I was quoted. Might want to make a few corrections. The OxStu piece you took it from says:
”
While some students may be glad to get their exams out of the way early, others have expressed anger at the decision.
“My work’s being disrupted by the wedding of a boy who was born with the privilege of not having to do any,” said one second year English student.”
It said ‘Sophie FitzMaurice’ underneath, but you didn’t read very closely, because that was clearly the name of the author. Never mind. Let’s deal with the substance of what you’re saying here:
“That’ll just be the one Master of Arts degree with the highest honour of any heir to the British throne, and a graduation from the Defence Helicopter Flying School then. But then again, he never went to Oxford…”
I’ll sort out the trash-talk first. The ‘he never went to Oxford’ part is putting into my mouth the kind of stereotypical Oxford elitism that I didn’t insinuate in any way in my quote. Moreover, it just doesn’t exist, really; going to Oxford doesn’t automatically imply the sort of privileged mentality that would spawn that kind of remark. If you talked to some Oxford students instead of misreading their articles, you might realise that.
The point of what I was saying is that he doesn’t have (and the emphasis is on ‘have’) to work – as evidenced, ironically, by what you said; he can get a ‘Master of Arts’ qualification and then move on to fly helicopters, if His Highness chooses. Some of us don’t have the resources to study a degree for the sake of it, unfortunately – but he does! He gets taxpayer money to sustain his position as a redundant figurehead. Great for tourism and ‘patriots’: annoying for students. This is why I said what I did to the OxStu.
Hope this clears it up for all those reading the (redundant) article!
P.S. I expect a comment reply explaining your choices and omissions of words by the way, Maddy.
Student Press is a comment piece – it is a light-hearted look at news in other university newspapers. It is not malicious in any way, or intended to misconstrue others’ writing or points of view.
The remarks about Oxford are clearly tongue-in-cheek, and quite evidently not intended to cause offence, or be in any way interpreted as ‘trash talk.’ “He never went to Oxford” is not put into your mouth, in no way is it attributed to you. Quite clearly it was my own addition at the end, as a joke, for a university such as York, which takes in good humour its reputation as an Oxbridge Reject Institution.
Not sure what “move on to fly helicopters” means – he completed his rotary training in full, with an arts degree, as many RAF pilots do; there is no necessity for any degree, never mind a science degree, to be a pilot.
To suggest that I should have ‘talked to Oxford students’ is a misunderstanding of the piece, while it appears in the News section, it is not a report of other university goings-on, it is a comment on articles found in other student press.
I apologise for the error with Ms FitzMaurice’s name, when reading the article I clearly misunderstood, and assumed the quote was attributed to her as it finished “said one second year English student. Sophie FitzMaurice.” I can certainly change the name in the piece to reflect this error.
I don’t, however, feel that such an aggressive comment was called for. Anyone reading this article (especially the way it is in print – separated from other news, with headshot) can tell that it is not an attack on the university, writer or quoted participants. There is no malice whatsoever in my writing, never has been, never will be. I apologise for any offence caused, but I hope you can appreciate that none was intended.
“Student Press is a comment piece – it is a light-hearted look at news in other university newspapers. It is not malicious in any way, or intended to misconstrue others’ writing or points of view.
The remarks about Oxford are clearly tongue-in-cheek…”
It doesn’t matter. They reinforce a stereotype that some of us are trying extremely hard to reverse. Tongue-in-cheek or not, when kids from state schools read that kind of comment, it solidifies for them the image of elitism and exclusivity that discourages them from applying. Satire works a whole lot better when it’s not placed next to what is construed as ‘real’ opinion – the part about William’s qualifications and ‘work’.
“Not sure what “move on to fly helicopters” means – he completed his rotary training in full, with an arts degree, as many RAF pilots do; there is no necessity for any degree, never mind a science degree, to be a pilot.”
Actually, a lot of positions within the RAF (such as aerospace systems operator) require some higher education in science/technology/IT, but that’s not the point. The point is, (and agree: like many RAF pilots, but these ‘many’ aren’t funded by the taxpayer, are they?) he has the liberty of studying for the hell of it. I don’t. Wish I did. That’s why I made that comment to the OxStu.
“it is a comment on articles found in other student press.”
Stereotype is stereotype, uninformed is uninformed, misreading is misreading. I don’t care where you put it on your website, really.
“I don’t, however, feel that such an aggressive comment was called for”
heat, kitchen, etc.
“Anyone reading this article (especially the way it is in print – separated from other news, with headshot) can tell that it is not an attack on the university, writer or quoted participants”
Well, clearly not, as I’m writing this. Also, given the feedback your article has from various Oxford students who’ve read it (hence the upvotes/downvotes), you’ve not exactly done great here.
Thanks for changing the names, at least!
Dear Maddy,
I’m glad you value our university enough to write:
‘for a university such as York, which takes in good humour its reputation as an Oxbridge Reject Institution.’
Perosnally I always thought of it as York. Clearly you do pander to stereotypes.
Quite frankly you are an embarrasment. Not to mention the poor quality of your article.
this post was really, really cringe worthy. the whole university watch thing has to go, who cares? and maddy, your piece was bitchy- are you a reject too?
Before calling someone “an embarrasment” [sic], you might wanna learn how to spell the word. “Perosnally”, I think a critique of the quality of someone’s writing loses most of its credibility when it’s riddled with spelling mistakes.
Gregory Yates, I suppose saying “when kids from state schools read that kind of comment” isn’t any kind of generalization either?
Why don’t we all just be happy with our lot? Seems this is all a bit of a fuss over a small comment really.