Letters
Dear Sir,
I am writing in response to the article "Polytechnics catching up in teaching quality" (Oxford Student, November 9th) in which it was stated, "Former polytechnics are doing as well as or even outperforming Oxford in teaching quality assessments." Support for this statement is given by quoting results from QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) inspections. However, QAA does NOT me sure teaching quality!!
A glance at its website will tell you this. Rather, it measures what mechanisms departments have in place to ensure that they achieve their educational aims and objectives. Therefore it is, if anything, an administrative quality assessment. Of course, the lower the aims and objectives, the greater the chance of doing better on this scale. Therefore, as mentioned in your article, QAA results are very misleading.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Philip K. Maini
You've certainly highlighted a number of good points. And students here who struggle through courses only to end up with the same degree as their friends who've partied through their courses elsewhere no doubt share your sentiments.
NOT SO RANDOM...
Dear Sir,
(With reference to last week's letter page) I was referring to a manifesto for the OUSU elections which appeared in your paper - is that relevant enough to Oxford?
Marcus Pitcaithly
Well yes, but you see we didn't know that. Largely because we're stupid. Sorry.
DON'T GIVE LIFE TO THE MAX
Dear Sir,
It is with great regret I note that your newspaper in its attempt to publicly humiliate me should so spectacularly fail. As you are by now no doubt aware the man photographed on page 6 of issue 7 is in fact not me at all, but my old friend Alexander Gilmour.
I believe that both Alexander and I are owed n apology for what, I am sure you will accept, was a pretty elementary factual error. I must confess that blatant inaccuracy was not until this point one of my reasons for condemning your publication but it is now.
I have no idea which LMH students you spoke to who suggested I might have a personal vendetta against you or your newspaper but they were wrong. I just happen to think that the Oxford Student is awful and I have little doubt that Mr.Gilmour agrees with me after his rough and unwarrented treatment at your hands.
Yours in wrath,
Maximilian Hardy
We are naturally deeply deeply sorry to Mr.Gilmour. There is, of course, no greater insult on this earth than to be falsely accused of being Max Hardy. This is, as you say, quite "rough and unwarranted". Indeed, it was very self-effacing of you to note this.
Likewise, we can't imagine where we got the idea that you had a "personal vendetta against" the OxStu. Maybe it was the fact that you appear every week in the Cherwell slagging us off including going on the record as saying that the Oxstu is a "Tawdry tabloid" . Or maybe it was the fact that you tried everything including lying to get your JCR to desubscribe from the OxStu despite the fact that, by your own admission, you didn't think the motion stood a chance.
If, as you allege, Mr. Gilmour really does think that the Oxford Student is "awful", one would hope that he is basing that opinion on slightly more than the innocent mistake to which you refer, although we suspect that you've made this one up as well.
Finally, Mr. Hardy, we did not try to publicly humiliate you. Much as we would like to take credit for your humiliation we are afraid that the credit is all yours. You publicly humiliated yourself by cheating a motion into your JCR meeting and then by running around your quad with your trousers down. We just report news. It is rather pathetic that you are all too keen to appear in the newspapers when you want to lay into us, but write letters of complaint when we report stories of your mendacity and untrustworthiness. Well, unfortunately Mr. Hardy, if you live by the press...
23rd Nov 2000