The good, the bad, and the shitty slogan

Catchy, witty slogans have always been an apparently crucial part of any budding sabbatical officer’s election campaign. However, concerted efforts to scale new heights of wit from some of Exeter’s finest would-be politicos have often fallen disastrously short. In the name of rigorous investigative journalism, I trawled the archives for the most misplaced slogans in recent years, in an attempt to provide this year’s candidates with some entirely serious advice about how not to make me cringe.

As they near the end of their terms in office, last year’s Sabbs can rest easy in the knowledge that, on the whole, the slogans they thrust upon an unwitting student population were not that bad. VP Participation and Campuses Jak Curtis-Rendall kept things simple, urging students to vote “Jak 4 Pac”, while Chris Rootkin implored us all to “Root for Rootkin”, while dressed up as a potato, a foodstuff infamous for not actually being a root vegetable.

Despite these minor potato-based inaccuracies, 2013’s cohort faded in comparison to the montage-worthy brilliance of the cringeworthiness offered by the election hopefuls from the 2012/13 academic year. Ben Jones, who eventually lost the Guild President race to Nicholas ‘Welshy’ Davies (who dressed as a sheep all week to win, obvs), harrowingly implored voters to “Give the Guild a BJ”. Quite how this slogan would have played out during the post-SSB fallout remains thankfully unknown. Meanwhile, Jenny Mayhew invoked the might of the “J Team” in her election campaign, with the less said about this method of campaigning the better.

However, the best (and by best I obviously mean worst) of that year’s horrible, horrible slogans came in the race for VP Welfare. Ian “Flash” Gordon enticed voters with “Fancy a flash?”, but voting statistics from that year indicate that while many voters were irrevocably scarred by Ian’s insinuation, few actually listed him as their preferred candidate.

While the flaws in Gordon’s mildly unsettling strategy were laid bare (sorry) for all to see, the other Welfare candidates were obviously unwilling to give creepy Ian centre stage in the inevitable denouement of this paragraph. Sam Hollis-Pack ran with HP Sauce, evoking the well-known Welfare device of brown savoury syrup, while Samuel Longden went all Michael Bay montage scene with “Together we can, we will”. Unfortunately for Samuel, we couldn’t, and we didn’t.

Eventual election winner Imogen Sanders won with “Imagine Imogen”, as well as, one would imagine, some insightful and intelligent policies. Not that your policies would matter when you’re running against a flasher, a sauce obsessive, and a wannabe Jed Bartlet tragically mired in the backwaters of the West Country.

These diabolical attempts were topped only by Josh Cleall, who contrived to not become 2012 Guild President with the slogan “Cleall or No Cleall”. Despite invoking the laboured stereotype that students just watch daytime TV, as well as unnecessarily reminding everyone of Noel Edmonds (who has always personally made me think of a really sad lion), Cleall was unable to open the red box marked “President”. Devastation.

Good slogans are simple, right?

Another personal favourite came in the 2011 race for Guild President, where seemingly atemporal leaflet-freak Damien Jeffries (he also ran in 2012) ran on a policy of “Compensation, Crackdown, and No Nonsense”. To contextualise this, Jeffries’ manifesto included a ban on suggesting that he looked like England footballer James Milner, and plans for a ski-lift up Stocker Road. Weird.

To end this article on the bleak note it’s all been building to, I’d like to quote the manifesto of Giovanni Sforza, an unsuccessful candidate for VP Participation and Campuses in 2011. Sforza told students to “make the best of it”, and this, readers, is my advice to you, too. If you’re running, then please, please, PLEASE think about how cynical, jaded, and potentially hungover students like me are going to receive your slogan. If you’re not running, then move beyond this article’s questionable sass (after sharing it with all your friends, obviously), and engage with the manifestos offered by your candidates. They will shape your university experience in any number of ways, and they deserve your attention, despite the terrible slogans. Make the best of a chaotic week, and make your mark on student democracy.

Owen Keating, News Editor

Do you have a favourite so-bad-it’s-good election slogan? Do the awful puns actually brighten your day? Or are they just a nuisance and a distraction from the real issues at stake? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Do policies actually matter more than personalities in student elections?

Liam Trim, Online Editor, urges you to consider the importance of manifestos before voting in the upcoming Sabb Elections…

Image Credit: BloomingBath.com

Us students are an educated bunch, that’s why we’re here at the University of Exeter. When we graduate we get to wear the badge of education proudly for the rest of our lives, regardless of whether or not we actually spent more time memorising the exact taste and texture of curly fries than reading, or writing essays.

When elections dominate the news educated people (that’s us remember) often like to make a fuss about voting for a party and the policies that party is advocating, rather than voting for a person  because their smile seems genuine.

We, the educated, make a number of convincing arguments. Firstly, many people don’t understand the system. They think the wannabe Prime Ministers are like X-Factor contestants. They forget about the parties and the MPs and the complications.

Crucially, they forget about the policies, the promises and ideas that actually matter. Shame on the voters who ignore a candidate because he or she was a bit too shy. They may have had the ideas to make our lives better, in a significant and tangible way.

We know better, don’t we, us educated people?

I’ve certainly found the tendency of my parents to vote for the party that their parents voted for depressing. Surely they should think for themselves? Perhaps we’re too young, optimistic and snobby due to our wonderful education, though. Maybe they think we’re naive for casting our votes based on false promises in a manifesto.

The candidates in the imminent Sabb Elections will have manifestos. But, as a final year student, I’ve already been through two student elections and I’ve learnt that it’s hard to find the time to read them all. It’s hard to escape the everyday concerns of your own life, for something that doesn’t seem that important, pressing or relevant. We forget our principles about educated people taking the time to vote for policies, not personalities. In fact, us students are social beings as well as educated ones, so we’re likely to vote for our friends or acquaintances.

So maybe we really are too quick to judge our parents and those disillusioned with voting throughout society, or even those who do so in a hurry or out of habit. And maybe we’re wrong to place such an importance on policy in student elections anyway.

Devonshire House, home of the Guild and its Sabbatical Officers, is not the Houses of Parliament. The policies are not important on a national scale. Many ideas in the manifestos of candidates will be based on genuine student concerns, but others will be crowd-pleasers. Not all of the policies will be feasible, even if they mean well, and we can’t blame candidates entirely for that. They do not have the resources of political parties to check facts and gauge opinion.

But 2014’s new Sabbs will be in a position to make a difference. Devonshire House isn’t Parliament, but it does provide an outlet for democracy and student opinion. Sometimes the views of students will bring about genuine change. This year’s Sabbs have increased society funding, helped keep street lights on and assisted students with their search for accommodation. If they do their job correctly they will pass on the concerns of students to the Guild, and make sure the Guild act on those concerns.

So how do we choose between the candidates in February? Is a trustworthy, approachable personality more important than a manifesto? If the Sabbs are just our representatives to the Guild, shouldn’t the student body be choosing the policies, and our Sabbs simply passing them on?

Well, yes. And this is why the manifestos and policies do matter. It needs to be more than a handful of random ideas, discussed with a couple of mates. If a candidate is going to be a good Sabb, they need to be able to be able to find out what students want, need and can achieve. If they cannot find out those things now, and put them in their manifesto, then they’re unlikely to be much better at representing us after they’ve been elected.

Liam Trim, Online Editor

Will you be voting in the Sabb Elections? Will you read the manifestos, or just vote for someone you know and trust? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Sabb Elections: A Chance To Have Your Say

With Sabb elections fast approaching, Emily Tanner argues that however little difference you think it makes, this is your chance to have some say in the place you call home during term time.

As an unknowing and naïve fresher, coming out of halls one morning in January two years ago I was utterly baffled when a blonde man dressed in running shorts (in itself surprising for the January we were having), a hoodie and sweatbands jogged up beside me and handed me a flyer asking me to vote for him as AU president. I probably didn’t even know what the AU was then (Athletic Union for fellow sports-a-phobics like me) let alone that it had a president who someone somewhere voted for. That I could vote for? What were these elections going on?

Image credit: Exeter Guild

These mystery elections – that caused that young man to kindly jog all the way from the path to Holland Hall to Queens with me that day, telling me all about his exciting sports based policies that I merely politely smiled at – were the Sabb elections and in two weeks time campaigns will once again sweep across campus. You may be handed sweets three days in a row on your way up Stocker Road, gladly take them and throw the accompanying flyer in the bin; you may encounter a flash-mob in the Forum plaza and stop to see what all the fuss is about; you might even decide to take the time to log onto the Guild website and vote at some point but whatever you think about elections, for five days on campus it’s virtually impossible to avoid them.

Every student who has ever been confronted with an overzealous campaigner on their way to a lecture will have learnt the techniques to try and bypass the campaigns. iPod in and focused stare is always a good one, sneaky cut through Reed Mews from that side of campus was one I definitely tried a few times in first year and the infamous “I’m so sorry, I do really have to take this very important but very imaginary phone call” will be seen all over campus by campaign teams and candidates. However, if you do have the time to spare on the way between classes, take out those headphones, stop making excuses and have a chat with the candidates and their teams. You’ll probably get some free sweets out of it at least.

Whatever you think of the Sabbs, the work they do and their importance on campus, this is our one real opportunity each year to engage in student politics, influence the way in which the Guild will be run for another year and do our best to get what we want from our Students’ Guild. Often Sabbs may not live up to their idealistic manifestos but you can’t complain about those unfair 9AM essay deadlines three weeks in a row if you haven’t voted for a VP Education, or moan about the fact that there aren’t enough chairs in the Ram if you didn’t go out and look for the best candidate for VP Participation on Campus.

However little difference you think it makes, however much you don’t really think you care, this is your chance to have some say in the place you call home during term time and try and get a little bit more of what you want from university life. Dive into campaigns week, enjoy the fun, frivolity and freebies of many of the campaigns and maybe put some crosses in some boxes if you get the chance.

Emily Tanner

Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

The Ram: To Queue or Not to Queue?

Never afraid to tackle the most divisive issues on campus, Online Comment editors Dave Reynolds and James Bennett discuss whether you should be queueing for a pint in The Ram.

It’s lunchtime in the Ram and you’re absolutely starving, craving some chicken bites and curly fries. You’d fancy your chances of getting served fairly quickly at the bar given a free-for-all but for no apparent reason there’s a queue running right down the walkway towards the pool table. What on earth is going on?

Photo Credits: Niklas Rahmel

We’ve consulted quite a few people on the issue and the majority do not understand why a queue forms but feel obliged to join it anyway. Why then is nobody brave enough to fight the status-quo and make that leap of faith? It is difficult pushing in as the fear of someone having a go at you for doing so is quite a deterrent.

“There’s no need to queue. This is just like any other bar” is shouted out by one of the bar staff on many occasions but nobody appears to listen. People just seem to love queuing.

Those who were in favour of queuing described anyone who pushed in as rude, obnoxious and down-right un-British. How dare somebody get served before someone who arrived earlier?

The layout of The Ram also doesn’t help the situation. A queue can form quite naturally as it is all fairly narrow, and once a few people start a queue at the front, it becomes quite difficult to skip it.

You have to wonder why Exeter students are so keen to to form an orderly queue in pursuing their pint, but come essay deadlines it’s a veritable free-for-all at any Bart submission desk. Among the pyjama-clad, paper-clipping masses you’re lucky to survive the ordeal without an elbow to the ribs or a stapler to the temple, let alone the idea of an orderly line come 09:56.

So, maybe we should all stop queuing in The Ram and get served on the merit of our ability to fight through people, look authoritative and wave cash under the bartender’s nose in true British style.

Dave Reynolds and James Bennett

[poll id=”87″]

What’s your opinion on the issue? Are you a queuer or a pusher? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Comment at the Israel Debate

Exeposé Comment’s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s debate concerning Israel’s desire for peace.

We did it, Exeter. As DebSoc President Scott Pepé so proudly announced, Exeter has triumphed at that which Durham, Oxford, and Cambridge have all failed: holding a successful debate on one of the most dividing issues of our time: Israel. With the motion “This House Believes that Israel pursues a policy of peace in the Middle East”, naturally spectator numbers were high, nearing that of the Thatcher debate – or, rather, the infamous Katie Hopkins debate – prompting a return to Newman A.

“Though the motion was not specifically geared towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the issue would clearly be unavoidable this evening…”
Photo Credit: Florian Seiffert (F*) via Compfight cc

Votes of conscience reflected little trust in the motion with the bulk of voters split between “against” and “abstain”. First speaker for the proposition, Professor Alan Johnson, Editor of Fathom and Senior Research Fellow of BICOM certainly had a challenge on his hands.

Apparently attempting the Guinness World Record for facts per minute, Professor Johnson launched his defensive mission citing Israel’s “repeated efforts to divide the land” such as in 1937 and 1947, and its territorial concessions to Jordan amongst other relevant facts as examples of its pursuit of peace.

Though the motion was not specifically geared towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the issue would clearly be unavoidable this evening and thus Johnson was quick to lay out his support for the Two State Solution. This, he stated, would allow both sides to exercise their right to self-determination, which should in turn end the strife of “both [of] Europe’s victims in this tragic history”. Nonetheless, despite his pace, his argument was at least clear and well-supported, though perhaps curtailing his history lesson would have left more time to provide a stronger conclusion.

Assuring the audience that she “[did] not envy the proposition’s position”, Dr Gharda Karmi emanated confidence from the outset, continuing that the audience “should not have difficulty” in voting against what she branded the proposition’s “propaganda”. The doctor, academic and author then swiftly embarked upon her assault of Israel, reducing the country to a territory of “war, instability, divisiveness and occupation”.

Taking us on a more negative journey through Israeli history via the Suez and Six-Day wars, 1981 bombings of Iraq, and the invasions of Lebanon and Bombay, Dr Karmi made a convincing effort to deconstruct the pacifist image that Professor Johnson had presented. She became increasingly impassioned as she noted Israel’s possession of nuclear and chemical weaponry and daily discrimination against non-Jews, most particularly so when describing the untried child prisoners, which climaxed in her fist-on-table conclusion that the Two State Solution would be impossible. “If it were”, she argued, “why doesn’t it already exist?”

James Clappison MP, Parliamentary Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, was soon to instigate a blame game, accusing the opp of not only contesting Israel’s right to be a state (this was later clarified as untrue), but also of having presented a “complete re-writing of history”. The true history, he claimed, was that of an Israel entitled to its own defence from Palestinian hostility, who launched rockets from Gaza and built the West Bank Barrier as a result of attacks such as the Yom Kippur War. Clappison also added that, in its pursuit of peace, Israel only engaged Iraq in the hope of destroying their WMD’s, whilst the West did this regardless. Emphasising that we must “embrace” the Two State Solution, he ended that “a vote for the opposition is a vote against peace”.

Picking up on this final quip, Dr Nadia Nasser, Research Fellow of the Arab and Islamic Studies Institute defined this “peace” as one of “separation and subjugation”. Dr Nasser built a robust argument on the strong foundations laid by Dr Karmi by recounting her own personal experiences of communities torn apart by sieges and control.

As she spoke about the restrictions she now faces in travelling to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem – sites she had enjoyed visiting pre-Oslo Accords – and the road blocks and diversions caused by the dividing wall hindering her from visiting her Aunt who was previously just 5 minutes away, Dr Nasser shattered the television screen with which we conveniently distance ourselves and allowed the gravity of the situation to become strikingly real. It is for this reason, that she is this week’s Best Speaker.

Questions saw a good deal of audience opinion shine through, which, though interesting, did have to be quelled by chair Ellie Binks, who politely reminded us that questions must be kept short – indeed some did prove a good challenge in figuring out what exactly was being asked. Some of the more understandable – though by no means less probing – questions addressed the issues of arms exportation, the utility of war, America’s role in Israeli-Palestinian debate, and whether a One State solution would ever be possible.

While the general consensus was that America’s attempt to be an “honest broker” in the proceedings would ultimately hamper and taint the process, naturally, mention of a one state solution brought with it a hefty hand of tension. Dr Karmi was adamant that both peoples are peaceable enough to live under a single democratic rule, which was supplemented by Dr Nasser’s assertion that with the number of illegal settlements scattered across Palestinian land, the map is now far too complicated for the land to be divided. Clappison disputed this, comparing the situation with that of Ireland, followed by Professor Johnson who humorously interjected that “a couple at each other’s throats do not get married”.

This was not enough to convince the audience, however, and the opposition won with a good share of the votes.

Fiona Potigny

Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

The Prohibition Ball: Putting Charity at the Centre

With the Prohibition Ball fast approaching, James Bennett argues that the lack of a single nominated benefitting charity does the event a disservice.

Since the cancellation of the ever popular SSB I am now thoroughly bereft of any legitimate reason to go out on the town in my pants, of which The Firehouse can only be so accommodating. However, the looming Prohibition Ball has promised an evening of fun and frivolity with a side of, ‘zoot suits, bowler hats, flapper dresses and feathers’ as a fun and more importantly hopefully inoffensive alternative.

“The looming Prohibition Ball has promised an evening of fun and frivolity with a side of, ‘zoot suits, bowler hats, flapper dresses and feathers’ as a fun and more importantly hopefully inoffensive alternative.”
Photo Credit: wakalani via Compfight cc

Organised by Exeter RAG, it looks like it’ll be a great night for those who were quick enough to secure their non-transferable tickets before they sold out. The problem as I see it is the lack of a nominated charity for the proceeds to go towards; the SSB has a legacy and a cause that the new ball seems to lack.

This is not to say that I’m not hugely appreciative of all of the work that RAG do. They’ve raised thousands of pounds for a huge selection of nominated charities already this academic year and the work they do is something each and every member of RAG can and should be proud of. Moreover, dealing with the SSB backlash must have been a nightmare and to implement a brand new event in the immediately following year is no mean feat. My concern is that because the event doesn’t have the same hype surrounding it, the money raised is inevitably going to be a more modest sum and when divided between RAG’s numerous nominated charities makes much less of a statement.

The problem isn’t really about the amount raised though it’s that we could very easily have singled out a cause to support through the Prohibition Ball and in not doing so our alternative to the SSB begins to look like just that: a great excuse for a party with a bit of charity thrown in for good measure. Of course, none of this actually does anyone any harm and the money raised will make a great difference. However, the message that we’re sending is no longer that we wanted to support a worthy cause with a fundraising event; it’s that we needed to fill the SSB-shaped hole in our collective, scantily clad hearts.

The Prohibition Ball will be a fantastic event and I’m sure it will become a staple of Exeter’s social calendar, yet I can’t help but wonder if we couldn’t have done more to raise awareness for a plethora of worthy causes.

James Bennett

 Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Interview: Scroobious Pip

Josh Gray, Music Editor, chats to the poet /spoken word artist / rapper / director /radio DJ /one half of hip-hop duo Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip.

“I KNOW it sounds weird” roars Scroobius Pip, “I do want you to look back on this and smile but I kinda want that smile to be through tears”. This isn’t how he starts our interview, in case you were worried: it’s the lone vocal that kickstarts Repent, Replenish, Repeat, the latest collaboration album between the well-bearded Essex rapper and producer/laptop musician Dan Le Sac. The two have been working together since the release of their debut album Angles in 2008, merging Pips’s unique style of spoken word poetry with Dan’s trigger-happy electronic hooks. The last few years have seen them working on their solo careers, with Scroobius Pip

Image Credit: clippings.me

releasing his heavier Distraction Pieces and Dan Le Sac his more experimental Space Between The Words, but now they’re back together and ready to take over the UK underground scene once more.

“The point of doing solo records is that they would be so different,” explains Pip, “I needed to do Pieces ‘cause I had all these punk and metal influences, and Dan equally had all these different areas he wanted to explore that we don’t cover in our stuff together”. When asked if there was any sense of rivalry, he laughs: “There wasn’t any competition. I mean, I’m a Dan Le Sac fan”.

He speaks with a rhythmic stutter, giving the impression that he could break out into a well-paced verse at any moment: “I’m lucky to get this constant variation of going from touring with Dan for ages to then touring with a band. The last huge runs of tours and shows I did were all spoken word, so I get to experience all those styles and areas, so I can’t complain at all”.

The spoken word scene is where Scroobius Pip started out, performing without backing music to bring audiences a pure performance of his poetry. But in no way is he tied down to any one artform: “I do what I do,” he explains, “I usually go with spoken word artist ‘cause it’s so literal, I literally speak words. Ten years ago it was pretentious to say you don’t need labels, but now you clearly don’t. I mean if you want to know what Scroobius Pip sounds like then you can take your phone out and find out in under a minute. You don’t need to say ‘it’s poetry, it’s spoken word, it’s electronic and hip and this and that’. It’s like ‘it’s this, come listen!’”

Pip has also taken on directing duties for the pair’s videos and presents his own hip-hop radio show The Beatdown on XFM: “I have people who listen regularly and say ‘I’m not into hip-hop, but I like the stuff you play.’ Well that means you’re into hip hop! You’re just not into certain types of hip hop. I mean there’s a lot that’s crap and a lot that’s absolutely amazing, it’s about finding the right bits”.

Much of Repent, Replenish, Repeat’s content was inspired by loss and heartbreak: “I draw from true experiences; (lead single) ‘Stunner’ was about five or six different exes and probably one or two people I’d just fancied in films. As for ‘You Will See Me’, it’s largely about a guy who cheated on a friend of mine and then there’s elements I’ll take from my own break ups”.

Pip’s couplets slot in perfectly around Dan Le Sac’s glitchy soundbeds, demonstrating the synchronicity that has built up between them. “The process will normally start with Dan sending over tonnes and tonnes of beats and I’ll pick a few that I’m feeling” Pip tells me; “It’s all felt like a very natural process. We started out as solo artists, then did a couple of albums together, then both fancied doing solo records again. But the plan was always to then do our third record”.

The pair of them are known for performing electric shows before mingling with their fans: “I like that personal touch. It annoys me that there now exists such a thing as meet and greet tickets for gigs, when you can pay extra to meet the band. They f*cking paid to get in! They’re wearing your t-shirt and singing the words to your songs back to you, they shouldn’t have to pay to then meet you. In general, from doors ‘til stage time I’ll be on the merch booth, and after the gig I’ll be on the merch booth til the end to chat and hang out. It’s weird that people see that as a special thing. It’s what we should be doing”. So look out after the DLS vs SP show this week; you might just get a chance to meet the man of the mighty beard.

Speaking of which, I did manage to ask how he keeps his mane in such good shape: “Good beard oil is the way to go”, he sagely responds, “It’s such a fine line, I wouldn’t do anything more than that, because the point of having a beard is that you’re not having to ponce about and shave and be all caring of yourself. But get out the shower, put a bit of beard oil on and you’re sorted”.

Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip are playing The Lemon Grove on Tuesday 28th January

Josh Gray, Music Editor

Should you believe everything in a university's prospectus?

Official university prospectuses are being used to present an overly positive picture of higher education at some institutions, misleading prospective students. William Sandbach offers his thoughts on the issue.

Despite a fall in the total number of English and Welsh students applying for higher education in the UK during the last two years, most students would admit that applying to the top institutions in the land remains a highly competitive and stressful process. Almost every one of us is determined to pick a course at an institution which is worthwhile and rewarding, but it is almost certain that, to some degree, we are misled, or perhaps misguided, by the prospectuses of the universities which we apply to.

Photo Credit: The Guardian

As an English student, it is easy to be won over by the admirable claims on Exeter University’s website, such as that it boasts ‘one of the leading departments of English in the UK’. This claim establishes Exeter as a pinnacle of excellence.

However, confusion arises when we are also informed that Warwick’s English department is ‘one of the best English departments in the UK’ or that Durham University is home to ‘one of the top English Departments in the country’ while Newcastle’s English Department is ‘one of the highest-ranked […] in the UK’… The list goes on and reveals that prospectuses, by their very nature, are there to tell you what you want to hear and not what you need to know.Prospectuses also follow a formula which means that they are regularly undifferentiated from the competition.

Anyone who applied to University through UCAS will have been aware of how subject-specific we are expected to make our Personal Statements. By the age of 17, we are meant to have had work experience, interests and hobbies stretching back years which reflect our ‘passion’ for a given course. This is all very well but are we, as spoon-fed, clueless teenagers, led by prospectuses into studying a certain course on being told that it offers broad (and well-paid) opportunities which simply don’t exist?

According to TargetJobs.co.uk, an English Degree can realistically lead to jobs ranging from Advertising to Public Relations and Intelligence- indicating a vast array of opportunities. The picture is similarly rosy for, say, a History Degree which might offer employment in Law, Archiving and Journalism. Even with a fairly specific degree in Medicine, TargetJobs claims that this could translate into a career as a Lecturer or Police Officer.

Whatever the case, at Exeter you are likely to come to appreciate your degree and be more fortunate in the long-run than without one. Take ‘Theology and Religion’ at Exeter as one example where, 6 months after graduation, 100% of graduates are employed or in further study. This highlights that while prospectuses prudently promote propaganda with regard to their courses, it is fair to say that a degree from a prestigious university is an advantage in the competitive world of work.

William Sandbach

Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Can Casual Sex At University Ever Work?

Abi Polding argues that casual sex can never work, unless we get rid of the double standards & stereotypes surrounding sex that exist at the moment.

Casual sex – it’s something that goes on all the time at university, and something which many of us will engage in at some point in our lives. However, studies have shown that “women who sleep around at university are ‘more likely to become depressed’”. There are also widespread double standards when it comes to casual sex which lead to an unfair amount of pressure and guilt being placed upon women who choose to have a lot of sexual partners. So why shouldn’t we be allowed to engage in whatever sexual behaviour we want without being judged…?

Photo Credit: jeff o_o via Compfight cc

Sex is something that definitely involves communication, trust and an agreement of what both people want. The problem is that these things really need to be decided on before, and when sex is casual and spontaneous, often one person will see it as more serious than the other, leading to a lack of mutual agreement and, ultimately, meaning that one person gets hurt. These days, it’s often women who seem to get hurt by having casual sex.

I feel that this is due to the double and unrealistic standards in place when it comes to sleeping with people on a casual basis. If a woman sleeps with a lot of men she’s generally seen as a slut. If you need proof of this you only need to look at the kind of opinions being circulated in popular culture today, or even around the people on a university campus. If a man sleeps with a lot of girls he’s often respected by his peers, or seen as a “lad”, someone to be looked up to.

Because of this, girls often have a fixed idea that they need to try and limit their number of sexual partners, or risk being judged by others. Having casual sex is something that could therefore make them feel guilty, and possibly unhappy with the decision they made. Feelings of regret will only contribute to unhappiness, and often girls can feel trapped from this. Basically, casual sex can sometimes lead to you feeling a bit rubbish.

So is there a way to have casual sex as a woman without getting hurt? Biologically, the hormones that are released when we have sex completely work against us, making us form an attachment to our partner without us even realising it. Oxytocin is released during sex, making us “lower our defences and trust people more”, and women produce more of this hormone at the time. Bearing this in mind, it’s easy to see why situations like “friends with benefits” are widely considered not to work. If having casual sex works for you, then great. But for many, it doesn’t seem to end up being ideal.

Sex can be great as long as it’s consensual, safe, and both people agree what they want. The best way to have a happy sex life if you’re single is to make sure you consider what you want before going into anything you may regret later. Personally, I don’t think casual sex can ever work, unless we get rid of the double standards & stereotypes surrounding sex that exist at the moment, and unless both people are completely sure what they want – and let’s face it – at this point in our lives none of us are really 100% sure, right?

 Abi Polding

Is “sleeping around” a sign of insecurity or a healthy freedom of expression? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Isn’t Being in a Sexually Humdrum Relationship More Likely to be Depressing?

Nickie Shobeiry argues that we’ve been under the impression that women can’t have casual sex without there being something inherently wrong with them.

Ah, the 21^st century. A time of liberation, tolerance, decency – until we see yet another article hanging onto the coat-tails of science, with claims to one more ‘Eureka!’-inducing find.

Photo Credit: Leonardo Stigliari via Compfight cc

What’s this fresh nugget of wisdom, you ask? According to the Daily Mail, a study in New York found that women who sleep around at university are more likely to become depressed. Let’s have a look at some of the alleged reasons:

• ‘Unfavourable attitudes towards sex outside of committed relationships.’

Plenty of times have I seen the heavy hand of judgement slap a fellow friend across the face for her night-time knicker-free adventures; however, that same hand is quite often attached to a drivelling imbecile, so what’s the problem? (The problem is decades of ignorance ingrained into our skulls, but I’ll get to that in a moment.)

•  ‘Failure for the hook-up to transition to a romantic relationship.’

Humans are complex. Whilst we cannot assume that every thump of the headboard is the equivalent to wedding bells, we also cannot assume that every hook-up is the free flowing, carnal expression it was meant to be. Feelings can arise like ingrown pubic hairs, but does that mean a woman should buckle on the chastity belt until the circumference of her ring-finger is measured? No.

• ‘Sexually unsatisfying hook-ups.’

Perhaps this is a speculation so wild it’ll give the research team a run for their money, but isn’t being in a sexually humdrum relationship more likely to be depressing, as opposed to a single fling that leaves you with the down-town lady blues? No? Anyone?

For centuries, we’ve been under the impression that women can’t have casual sex without there being something inherently wrong with them. Low self esteem, ‘daddy issues’, amoral heathens – God forbid a woman just wants a little bit of action.

Indeed, we should ask ourselves whether casual sex is sometimes a possible symptom of depression, rather than the root of it. Herding all women who ‘sleep around’ into a ‘possibly depressed’ category is akin to admitting it’s impossible to be a happy individual who enjoys an active sex life (which is, conversely, what we expect of men today, no questions asked – lest they, too, have something inherently wrong with them).

At the end of the day, we’re all adults and (hopefully) capable of not hurting ourselves and those around us with our choices – so why can’t we be trusted to exercise that ability, with or without our underwear around our ankles?

Nickie Shobeiry

Is there a healthy way to engage in casual sex as a woman and why would this differ from the case for men?

Is “sleeping around” a sign of insecurity or a healthy freedom of expression? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.