What's this? Some interesting candidates for Chancellor? Heaven forbid. Some sensible candidates for Chancellor? Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
First up, the jokers: Chris Patten. I mean let's face it, why is he really standing? Probably to add another rather meaningless title after his Hong Kong days...
Lord Bingham. Thinks he's got a foot in the door, because he's High Steward of the Uni. Or something. Well, clearly a candidate who is pro-top-up fees, deserves to be ridiculed from the roof-top of OUSU Towers, and believe me it's high.
Still not really in the 'sensible' bracket, but if the rumours about Bill Clinton are true, then maybe things will open up once more. Stay tuned.
And the anti-establishment figure Andrew Malcolm is becoming the serious contender.
As competition heats up for what is considered the most prestigious post in academia, one question only is on every Oxford student's lips - where are all the credible candidates?
Chris Patten, the current Chancellor of Newcastle University, has been a mainstay of the race in the light of Clinton's apparent reluctance to take on the role. But from new wannabe Lord Bingham, who entered the race this week, to Andrew Malcolm, embittered loon of AKME Expression fame, the rest of the contenders for the coveted role of our titular figurehead do not inspire confidence.
This week a Corpus Christi student has even invited Christine Hamilton, bastion of scandal, to apply. So far her nomination has received just two votes, though Tom Berriman, member of Corpus JCR, received a letter from Ms Hamilton confirming that she is willing and honoured to be nominated for Chancellor of the university and to serve if elected.
The precedent of the race seems set. Lord Bingham, the country's most senior Law Lord declared both his intent to stand and his support for top-up fees on Tuesday, claiming that only fees would halt Oxford's "slide into mediocrity".
At this tense time, with the battle to retain our meritocracy more important than ever, and student protest just getting into its stride, Bingham's action should be seen as political suicide in student eyes. Even if within a year or two fees are a dead issue, the Chancellorship is a lifetime role and it does not inspire confidence that in his first test of loyalty, Lord Bingham has betrayed the cardinal student concern of the moment.
The Chancellor is essentially an ambassador for the University, here to oversee the positive development of its structure and policy. Lord Jenkins certainly made the most of his close political connections - not always in favour of students, as the recent scandal of his support for top-up fees attests - and it is hoped that his successor will enjoy a comparable influence to lobby the government. As Lord Chief Justice there is no reason why Lord Bingham should not provide this effective lobbying voice over the many other pressing issues which affect students now and in the future, but he has lost our confidence and we would be forgiven for thinking that a prospective £15,000 a year somewhat obscures the bigger picture.
The White Paper on fees is the source of much of the Chancellorship controversy. Shirley Williams, the former Education secretary, was tipped to win, and possessing both the girl and Socialist cards did her no harm. However she pulled out last week; her opposition to top-up fees creating a "conflict of interest" with the demands of the role.
Chris Patten, former Governor of Hong Kong and European Commissioner is certainly not a stranger to the role not only as Chancellor of Newcastle University but offered the headship of the LSE, but his assigned status as frontrunner in the light of Clinton's seeming disinterest seems to be largely by default.
It is possible that despite recent claims, Clinton may have re-entered the race. Talking exclusively to The OxStu, his press office counselled students to "stay tuned" as to the President's decision; perhaps the chance of an eleventh hour change of heart by the former President is not to be ruled out.