“Pale, male and stale”: how many times has this epithet been used to describe government cabinets and big business boardrooms alike? According to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’s latest report, Oxbridge graduates still make up the majority of those seated at these important tables and it would seem that attending one of Britain’s two oldest universities is the ticket. However, as the latest freshers arrive, and the Union prepares for a Week One debate questioning whether Oxbridge is a force for good, it is timely to consider whether Cambridge is cursed by the whiff of ‘elitism’ or blessed by it.

As the Elitist Britain? report by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (SMCPC) reveals, 75 per cent of senior judges, 59 per cent of the cabinet, 50 per cent of diplomats, 47 per cent of newspaper columnists, and 12 per cent of the Sunday Times Rich List attended Oxbridge, whereas just one per cent of the population as a whole is Oxbridge-educated. Whilst this appears to indicate that Oxbridge attendance stands students in good stead, the Chair of the SMCPC the Right Honourable Alan Milburn argues that these figures prove the existence of “A closed shop at the top [which] can all too easily give rise to a ‘not for the likes of me’ syndrome.” This perceived elitism, and the problems of access which are associated with it, is something which all three major party leaders have spoken out against. From this perspective at least, perceptions of elitism serve to prevent social mobility; resulting in the dominance of the privileged few at the top of British society, particularly given that there is still a strong link between independent school attendance and progression to Oxbridge. On average, 40 per cent of Cambridge students are privately educated, compared with seven per cent of UK school children.

In Cambridge, however, there is still tension as to whether such elitism is an issue to be tackled. A university spokesperson said that such a question “can’t be answered because it is premised on an acceptance that ‘elitism’ exists.” Nevertheless, they went on to explain that “Events [including] Challenge Days for pre-GCSE pupils, Summer Schools and subject Master-classes […] are intended to encourage students to aspire, to provide advice and support as they think about their future options, and to give a realistic picture of Cambridge as a diverse community to which anyone can belong.”

However, this is not quite enough to dispel the perception of elitism. Arthur Hannah, an Education with English and Drama student who receives the National Scholarship Programme’s £6000 tuition fee waiver (awarded to those from low-income homes, who have spent more than three months in care, have received free school meals, or are a single parent), remains sceptical. He explains that “when I applied to Cambridge it was in spite of, rather than because of, its reputation for a public school, elitist culture.” For Arthur at least, it seems that a ‘perception’ of elitism, whether or not the university accepts it’s existence, can be a significant turn-off. This is, after all, one of the central problems which target and access campaigns seek to tackle.

Hanna Stephens, a state-educated student at Homerton agrees that there is an impenetrable impression of elitism surrounding the university: “when I received my offer I wasn’t sure whether Cambridge was the right place for me because my perception of Cambridge was of weird traditions, gowns, wine and pretentious conversations.

“I think this is the image that the central colleges I visited on the open day, and students I talked to [...] tried to project, thinking that this is what prospective students are impressed by”. She describes the biggest issue as “a misconception of social elitism for prospective students” but realises that “with Cambridge being immersed in history and associated with typically upper class activities, societies and traditions, this is a curse which the university inevitably carries.” The very existence of labels such as ‘non-traditional Oxbridge background’ – often used to describe students from low-income homes and state schools with little history of getting students into Oxbridge – only goes to prove that this perception of elitism exists and exerts an influence over some prospective students.

However, Hanna, on arriving in the city, realised that her “perception of Cambridge was not the reality” and admits that she was “swayed by the educational opportunity” Cambridge offers. Perhaps this is the line in the sand amongst prospective students – those who push ahead into the application process are the ones who see Cambridge as an “educational opportunity” with the potential for long-term social mobility, whereas some of those who stop short of applying are instead daunted by Cambridge’s elitist atmosphere. Hanna seconds this view, claiming that “whilst... this kind of social mobility may appeal to some, I think this scares most prospective students from less privileged backgrounds”. It would seem, therefore, that whilst the potential for social mobility entices some into applying to Cambridge in cases such as Hanna’s, this ‘elitism’ is only a deterrent.

The ‘curse’ of elitism and the ‘blessing’ of social mobility clearly cannot be divorced. Whilst on the face of it, the university’s access schemes are essentially a major myth-busting operation, it doesn’t take a giant leap of imagination to see that these schemes are not intended to, and never will, completely succeed. The perception of elitism which hangs over the university is an inherent part of its prestige; such that graduates’ fantasies of top employers’ hearts beating just a little faster when reading “Cambridge” on a CV might actually have some grounding in reality. And that’s one myth the university certainly doesn’t want to bust.