It may sound like a broken record coming from an MML student, but there’s simply no denying it: the year abroad has given me more time than I’ve ever had at Cambridge. Studying in Spain this year has granted me the novel privilege of being able to work at my own pace. Of course, this level of freedom is not necessarily a universal experience, but it is also not uncommon, especially relative to Cambridge.

It’s no surprise that the workload here is lighter, though that must not be conflated with it being easier. This has obviously been conducive to an excellent social life and making the most of my time abroad without excessively being glued to a laptop. From a purely academic perspective, it may appear that I’m not being worked as rigorously as I would be at Cambridge. However, I would argue that I have improved academically, or at least unlocked a potential that I was unable to access in Cambridge.

For instance, MML students are required to complete a year abroad project. I opted for the 8,000-word dissertation. While I can’t say if my supervisor agrees just yet, I can confidently say that this has been the best academic work I’ve produced thus far during my time at Cambridge – ironically, because it was written in Madrid.

“Term often feels like a continuous exam, where the aim is to always just get something down on paper”

The reasons are pretty self-explanatory. It is the only piece of Cambridge work I am doing this year and so, I’ve had time to reflect and truly engage with the material. For once, I’ve been able to redraft meaningfully, and produce something I genuinely feel proud of, not just something mechanically written under pressure to get a decent 2:1. I only wish I could give every piece of Cambridge work this level of care. But, even when you’re putting in long hours in the library, that kind of sustained attention simply isn’t feasible.

When your mind is constantly occupied by the next deadline, you’re not encouraged to think, you’re encouraged to produce. Term often feels like a continuous exam, where the aim is to always just get something down on paper rather than meticulously taking the time to get it right. While I have witnessed many people do both, I, and many other students, simply do not work like this.

This is deeply ironic. Cambridge prides itself on its pursuit of excellence, and rightly so. It would be disrespectful to deny the university that. But, on a day-to-day basis, that ideal feels completely detached from how the system actually functions. The model conflates rigour with speed, as though true academic quality is best demonstrated by how quickly one can turn around something completely polished under pressure. Of course, deadlines do exist in the real world and academics do work under pressure, but those pressures are usually aligned with quality, not speed.

“You’re not encouraged to think, you’re encouraged to produce”

This truth is obvious to anyone who lives it. Despite this, Cambridge just won’t change. The current model reinforces the University’s old-age brand: prestigious, elite, and traditional. It rests on an antiquated belief that busyness equals brilliance; that intellectual strength is best proven by endurance.

This logic is self-defeating. It has created a culture where, during term time, students internalise the idea that quickly producing decent work is the goal, rather than learning to produce high-quality work through sustained thinking and revisions. The latter skill is essential not just for dissertations and coursework, but even for exams, where time is indeed limited but quality still matters. A weekly supervision essay may sharpen certain skills, but it does not always speak to a deeper engagement with that week’s material. How much can you reflect on specific feedback for one essay when the next is already under way?

My argument is not that Cambridge should be less demanding. It should be demanding by virtue, but that its demands must evolve. Rather than rewarding output or the ability to not combust under relentless pressure, Cambridge should shift its focus towards encouraging more high-quality and thoughtful work.

My time abroad has shown me that academic excellence, at least for me, seems to thrive not under harsh conditions but in an environment that allows for sitting with material and carefully troubling it. When students are given enough time to reflect and revise, many will move beyond the ‘good enough’ work that constant pressure produces. A solid 2:1 might quickly become a first if we were allowed to sit with content for just a bit longer.

Cambridge prides itself on educating the brightest minds. But if it wants to continue to honour this, it ought to re-examine how it defines academic success in undergraduate studies and whether its current pace allows students to reach their full potential at all.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form.