#GetGoveReading

I suppose I should start this with an apology: I am writing this off the cuff, and will probably be far from eloquent and facetious in many of my statements. Having heard the news that Michael Gove has revamped the GCSE English syllabus and axed 'Of Mice and Men' (amongst other things),  a text I studied myself at 16 and loved, I feel compelled to protest and I can't confine myself to a tweet or two to express that protest.

I have long disagreed with the policies of this politician, who seems to be on a one man mission to make the life of a teacher as hard as it can be, and put children off really getting under the skin of their subjects. It's just occurred to me that this might be linked to University fees ..... put people off learning at an early age and therefore solve the problem of trying to fund those who cannot afford to go themselves. Then we can put fees up to five or even six figures.

I digress (and there - if you hadn't noticed - was my first facetious comment).

I have always been a voracious reader, a regular in my school library. Little Women and Anne of Green Gables were my favourites when I was young (as would be evidenced by the fact that my name filled the little cards we had to use to sign things out, and the following shameful picture taken in the Uffizi gallery - that's Anne's House of Dreams - I can tell just by the orange band at the top)

I always had a book in my hand. I could go out for dinner with my parents and their friends and be relied on not to play up because I'd just disappear into the page when I got bored. Sometimes it was hard to get me to stop reading.

I remember the first time I read 'Pride and Prejudice'. I was 12, and distinctly unimpressed with the look of it when I got it for Christmas. But I started it, and I was hooked, and then quickly devoured more of the Austen canon (although I do remember stopping halfway through 'Mansfield Park' because I couldn't recall the plot or who these annoying people were. It remains my least favourite of Austen's work.)

What I didn't do, probably because I was too busy gobbling Agatha Christie mysteries, was pick up Dickens or George Elliot. I doubt I would have stuck with either of them if I'd been forced to read them. My GCSE texts revolved around 'Macbeth', 'A View from the Bridge', 'Of Mice and Men' and the poetry anthology of OCR - which I still have actually.

I wasn't particularly academic when I was at school - university properly opened the doors for me on that - but I loved English and the worlds it took me in to. I wish we had been able to read 'To Kill a Mockingbird', I think it would have been fantastic. I envy every student who was able to read it and discuss it's themes. I honestly can't think of any other book that so brilliantly shows the struggles of growing up and learning how to be tolerant of those around you, no matter their personal circumstance. I certainly can't think of a British author who has done so that we could use to replace this seminal book in literary history (prove me wrong, please do - it's depressing to think others haven't picked up Harper Lee's themes and run with them).

Charles Dickens is brilliant - I love him - but his writing is hard to grasp, and he often goes into great detail about topics that aren't central to the story and which were probably filler to get him to the end of that week's installment in the literary review for which he wrote. The political meeting in the early stages of 'Nicholas Nickleby' springs to mind. If he were writing now, his editor would probably tell him to tighten things up. 'Middlemarch' is a doorstop of a novel - a brilliant social commentary on the changes facing a small English community, but how many 16 years olds are going to relate to it, find things that speak to them and encourage them to think? I didn't read it until my second year of university.

I do agree with the department of education's thoughts that Shakespeare should be included ... I've been shocked to learn from my nieces that they weren't studying any of his plays. But we remove the modern playwrights at our peril. Social commentary comes in many forms and Arthur Miller is one of the best at holding a mirror up to our actions. We all should read more plays; pick them up like we do a novel, and not wait for a trip to the theatre to learn about their greatness.

Twitter is going mad on this subject (hence my title of this post). Susan Hill surprised me by saying 'Set books. Point is they shld study the BEST, the great books, not the easy ones. They shouldn't be studying me.' But who gets to decide what makes a book great or the best - Michael Gove? Don't let that man anywhere near the Booker prize. And I don't think I found 'Of Mice and Men' easy. Yes, it was short, but then I was able to go away and read other things, widening my experience and enabling me to have conversations with adults, which opened up other literary doors for me. 

The thing that concerns me the most in all of this is that it feels as if one man, and one man only, is deciding how the next generation is going to turn out and destroying any possibility of diversity. If the 'classics' are being rammed down people's throats and putting them off exploring other literature because they are too drained from ploughing through 'Oliver Twist', how are we to encourage them to explore and find other things to read that they will love and re-read and pass on to their friends to read.

Setting a syllabus is a hard task, and there is no right or wrong answer, but it surely deserves more consideration and discussion. There is so much written every year on the fact that GCSE's and A Levels are getting easier. Perhaps they are, although my nieces would vehemently disagree with that suggestion. But the mode of response by those who have the responsibility to address the issues seems to be panic - rushing around like headless chickens, trying to find a quick fix and hope that it will work.

Let me tell you Mr Gove, this will not fix the problem. It will damage the literary groundwork that is so useful for young people to build their love of literature upon. This isn't about universities and higher education, but this policy will surely have a harmful effect on admissions for humanities subjects. But we won't know about that for a few years, and then it'll be too late.

So - if you are a parent of a young child or you know one who trusts your judgement, go out and buy them a copy of 'Of Mice and Men' or 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or any other book you loved when you were their age and give it to them to read. Broaden their horizons before their school years get narrowed to the vanishing point on the line of perspective.

Black Lamb and Grey Falcon

When I was doing my MA in Life Writing (the study of biography and autobiography) at the University of East Anglia a few years ago, one of the set texts on the Autobiography module was Rebecca West's 'Black Lamb and Grey Falcon'.

I remain bemused as to why exactly it was on the reading list, for at 1,150 pages, it is a massive tome. As it was set halfway through the module, I also found it impossible to finish if I was going to read the other texts as well. Somehow, though, I managed to write an essay on it. I don't think it was very good.

The book still fascinated me though. Part travelogue of Rebecca West's journeys through Yugoslavia and part social history of how the country came into being and what shaped it's people, it is truly an epic read.

I've decided that the time has come for me to finish it (I seem to be reading a lot of books on or by strong women at the moment), and therefore I plan to take you on the journey with me. I've no fixed plan on how this will take shape (I'm not entirely sure Rebecca West did either when she sat down to write ....) but hopefully it will give insight into what is a powerful book about a powerful and enthralling country.

Somerville

Oxford can be a strange place. The University is, without a doubt, famous and draws many people to visit it's streets each year,* but it's identity is very much in the hands of the person describing it. Is it town or gown? Is it a place of great learning, or an old market town that has grown with the years? It is many things to many people.
I have always been conscious of the University part of the town, although until I went away to University, the colleges always seemed to be separate from me. I never went in them - indeed I hardly ever wanted to. They were just courtyards with briefly glimpsed gardens and I was quite content with that. I gradually started to move inside the warm stone of the outer walls: A series of concerts at The Queen's College, the literary festival at Christ Church, showing visitors Merton, but it wasn't until 2009 that the two sides of Oxford finally merged into each other. In 2009, I went to work for Somerville College.

The history of Oxford colleges is long and complicated. Balliol, Merton and University College were the first founded (and dispute amongst themselves over which came first) and thus a long tradition was established, finishing with Kellogg in 1990 (although Green and Templeton merged in 2008). Quite a few colleges have rivalries - I was told during my induction that the rivalry between Balliol and Trinity (who stand back to back) is particularly intense, and there are frequent proofs of this in the university papers and other little battles (apparently Balliol's tortoise, who was born the year Queen Victoria died, was stolen by Trinity at one point ....)

So, leaving these fascinating rivalries to one side, I shall take you back to a time when Oxford as a place of education was the haunt only of men. It wasn't that long ago, either. In the early 1870s, the wives of the dons** (and their daughters, and indeed women's suffrage campaigners as a whole) were getting restless. They wanted the chance to study the things their husbands taught, and believed themselves perfectly capable of study (contrary to popular opinion at the time). Things came to a head, after almost a decade of classes and public lectures, in 1878 when the proposal to form a permanent hall of study for women was agreed and Lady Margaret Hall (LMH) came into existence.

Yes, I know, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the college I intended talking about, but believe me, the reference to LMH is entirely relevant to the way in which Somerville came to exist, because out of LMH's restrictions, we were born. LMH (named after Lady Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII's mother)) was opened to the daughters of Protestant families only. A group of men and women (including T.H. Green and Mary Ward (Thomas Arnold's daughter)), who had long since campaigned for women to be allowed to study at Oxford, were opposed to this restriction, believing that if education was to be offered to women in the first place, there ought to be no restrictions placed on eligibility. To this end, in 1879, with the spirit of non-denominationalism and openness being the driving force behind its inception, Somerville was founded and moved into a property on the Woodstock Road.


The name of the college is an interesting choice, as rather than choosing a religious link (Trinity, St John's, Jesus) or powerful benefactor (Balliol, Wadham, Merton), the college was named after a renowned female scientist, who had died in 1872, Mary Somerville. An ideal role model for the higher education of women, Mary had taught herself science from her brother's textbooks, her father believing that the female frame was not robust enough to cope with the demands of learning. She proved him wrong, without a doubt, and was so well respected that her book 'The Mechanics of the Heavens' was used as a textbook in Cambridge 50 years before the college was even thought of.

The life of of an Oxford female undergraduate was not without its trials. Although officially allowed to attend the University, they were only permitted to attend lectures when accompanied by a another female student or chaperone. It was not until 1920 that women were permitted to actually take the degree for which they had studied so hard. Another restriction has actually served Somerville quite well: for when women were first admitted to the University, they were not permitted to use the facility of the Bodleian at all (whether they had chaperones or not). This meant that the college was required to make its own arrangements and the library is now the second largest, with over 120,000 titles. It's also stunningly beautiful, which helps!


When one thinks of Oxford colleges, the immediate images that come to mind involve cloisters, students in black gowns, Morse and Harry Potter. If you were to stop the average person on the street, they might term the place 'stuffy'. This is an image that Somerville works hard to refute. Openness is one of the predominant characteristics of the College - not for us the secret cloisters known only to the special few, or the grass so revered it is not to be stepped on. Somerville's lawns once played host to tennis games and a donkey, and are now the ideal place in Summer for tutorials. Like many colleges, the site was requisitioned during both wars, and soldiers (including Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves) recuperated beneath the shady trees on the main quad. Our location has been considered awkward (although not being bang in the centre has its positives, being therefore less on the tourist trail) but it complements our ethos, as whilst we are rich in history, we also rub shoulders with the vibrant communities of Jericho and Little Clarendon Street. Cardinal Newman and Gerard Manley Hopkins preached on our doorstep (we are, ironically for our non-denominational standpoint, next door to the Catholic church) whilst our back gate leads directly to the bohemian bookshops and cinema that help keep a studious soul fresh and lively.


Somerville has always been a welcoming place, and in 1994 it finally opened its doors to men. Admittedly rather late in this aspect of Oxford history (the first women were admitted to previously all male colleges in 1974, and LMH celebrated its centenary by going co-educational), we made up for it by admitting pretty much equal numbers of men and women from the beginning. Being told on the potential pitfalls men could bring, the college was advised that men would eat more food and break more furniture. Perhaps that's why the bike shed was turned into a gym!

Like any other college, we are proud of our students and alumni, always wanting to know where they are, and what they've done. Ever since the college's inception it has produced ground breaking and pioneering women who have helped prepare the way for their successors. Cornelia Sorabji was not only the first female barrister in India, but she was also the first woman to read Law at Oxford (although admitted to read English, she impressed the dons and managed to persuade them to let her change her course); Dorothy Hodgkin (student and later tutor) became the first British woman to win the Nobel prize for science; Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher became the first female prime ministers of their respective countries; Philippa Foot (Philosophy Fellow) was instrumental in setting up Oxfam; Shirley Williams followed in her mother's footsteps and honed her keen intellect within our walls.

Our artistic talent is prestigious too, for we can boast of many fine writers, including Vera Brittain, Winifred Holtby, A.S. Byatt, Iris Murdoch, Margaret Forster, Dorothy L. Sayers, Penelope Fitzgerald, Matthew Skelton and Kate Williams. Our male alumni are beginning to make a name for themselves, and already we can talk of an MP in Surrey East, an HR manager of Innocent Drinks, a playwright and a past winner of University challenge (who is also the first male student to have become a Somerville Fellow).

Much of my information comes from a book written by our former librarian (and Somervillian) Pauline Adams, 'Somerville for Women'. It's a truly rich source, and coupled with her trademark wit, makes for lively and interesting reading. On the rare occasions when the office is quiet enough for me to dip in to it, I have found some great pieces of information, which occasionally get dropped into the tours I do. For instance, it took four years for the chapel to be agreed upon and built, because the alumna who gave the money wanted it to be called Christ's House, which went against our non-denominational outlook, and once that was sorted out, there were further discussions on where it would be, and who would build it. Somervillians have never been known for being easy!

I could ramble on in this way for ages, sharing stories of the past, which have become an inspiration for the present. Every day I learn of new alumni to boast about (like the woman who was ordained in 1917 and became a congregational minister in the East End) or another story which fires my imagination (Dame Janet Vaughan (then Principal of College) requesting all the students here to have wine at dinner when Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister). Everything I learn helps to prove what a truly inspirational place Somerville is, and makes me want to share it with a wider audience.






*It is heavy tourist season at the moment .... you can tell, because the people that actually live here are walking in the road, the pavement being monopolised by a sea of well meaning, but very slow walking persons who stop every few seconds to take a photo. I shouldn't criticise - I do the same in Florence.
** That's tutors to those not familiar with Oxford jargon

Getting your money's worth

When you work in higher education, you become highly attuned to everything written on the subject. As the A levels release date comes ever closer, I can be sure of one thing: that when they are released, newspapers will claim three things: A levels are getting easier, it's becoming more expensive to study at university and Oxbridge are discriminating against state schools.
I don't know enough about the first to be able to comment properly, and I would likely go into rant mode if I were to try and discuss the third (although it's not true, by the way!); but the second observation is one that i can talk about - here goes!

It is no secret that university fees are going up astronomically. From 2012, many universities will be allowed to charge £9,000 for their degrees, and although many are putting support packages in place to provide for students who would otherwise struggle with this financial burden, the question still remains on how universities will be able to prove their courses are worth the money. Much has been said on teaching quality, research and lecture time for students, but one vital aspect appears - to my mind - to have been completely omitted from the discussion.
When I was at university (I did my undergrad at Keele and my MA at UEA in Norwich) my mother impressed upon me the need to visit the careers centre. I hardly ever did, for the very simple reason that they were rubbish. The staff never seemed very helpful and their layouts were ill organised and confusing. When i first started my current job in the academic office at Somerville College - part of Oxford University - I was invited, as part of my induction programme, to visit the University's Career service. What I saw there amazed and impressed me.
Real thought has gone into the layout of the rooms, so that a student can be guided through the various stages of thinking about and applying for jobs, so there's a section where one can get guidance on preparing a CV and covering letter, and once that's sorted, another section dedicated to every type of career - some I'd not even thought about. Of course the prestige of an Oxford education holds its own special significance and there are lots of summer internships available for those who are part way through their degrees. Each college has its own dedicated rep from the careers service who can come out and give help and advice to those who who are about to set foot into 'real life'. So much is offered and it truly is a great asset for the University.

The point I am trying to make (without letting my passion run away with me) is that with employment being as hard to obtain as it currently is, and with more and more companies requiring university education from their employees, the careers service is quickly becoming one of the more vital aspects of university life. To my mind, money should be invested in this service at every university, because the more help our students get, the quicker they grab hold of a job that pays well, then the better able universities will be to prove that spending the money was worth it, thereby ensuring higher education can continue for the next generation.

Hmmm .... I think I let my passion run away with my meaning! I'm slightly worried that I'm sounding snobby or elitist here, and I certainly don't mean to. I am more than aware that higher education is not for everyone - I certainly never agreed with the Labour party policy of a target of 50% in higher education. It always seemed to be such an arbitrary figure and something that might end up forcing those better suited to apprenticeships or vocational courses into a form of education that did not suit them.

I can't think of a decent way of wrapping up this post without getting overly passionate (and as I've just engaged in a heated discussion with my parents' next door neighbour about whether or not any arts degree is worth while - she thought not, and managed to term my entire 4 years at University as a 'Mickey Mouse degree' - I'd best not start ranting.) My main point is, as I'm sure you'll all have gathered, is that Oxford's careers service rocks, and other universities would be well served by using some of the £9,000 fees to improve theirs. It's the way forward - you heard it here first!