Cambridge University prides itself on educating students with the most potential; it’s been widely reported that over 70% of admissions came from the state (maintained) sector. Cambridge is painting itself as a vanguard of social mobility – a centre for students from all backgrounds to hone their academic craft. This projected image is a myth. It’s not getting easier for state school applicants to get into Cambridge – it’s actually set to become harder.

“Cambridge is painting itself as a vanguard of social mobility - a centre for students from all backgrounds to hone their academic craft”

The ‘70%’ figure only represents the proportion of UK entrants; state school entrants in 2020 made up only 53.5% of the total intake. Given Cambridge’s stated commitment to ‘providing equality of educational opportunity,’ it’s easy to think that it’s embarking on a steady march of progress. But before last year, Cambridge’s state school intake had peaked in 2002. And while offers did increase in 2020, this was a pandemic-driven anomaly; fewer offers were made this year. If there’s such a dramatic contrast between reality and rhetoric, what does that mean for the university’s identity in the 2020s?

Private schools aren’t being discriminated against

It’s a common belief that Cambridge is discriminating against privately educated applicants in an attempt at social engineering. One private school headteacher, bizarrely, compared the situation to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews. But Cambridge’s private school intake remains disproportionately high, and in 2020 students from privately educated backgrounds had a higher success rate than those from the state sector. Myths of a ‘quota system’ biased against privately educated students (which Cambridge doesn’t use) don’t explain why the proportion of students from private schools at Cambridge is decreasing. The real reason is the rise of the ‘holistic assessment’ approach aiming to properly assess potential. But even with an improved application process, the fact is that many from lower socio-economic backgrounds who are capable of applying simply don’t, because they’re not given the right information and encouragement.

“One private school headteacher, bizarrely, compared the situation to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews”

Levelling the playing field

We spoke to Oliver Rutherford, Founder of UniRise, to find out more about these disparities. UniRise offers a free ‘Perfect Statement Course’ that provides disadvantaged applicants with expert support in writing personal statements. He told us that applicants in low performing state schools regularly receive incorrect advice – 75% of teachers’ personal statement judgements are misaligned with admissions tutors’. Since its launch last September, UniRise has already helped over 9,000 students get into top UK universities.

Other organisations are working to increase social mobility - InsideUni, a student-led organisation, has seen their expert-written application guides used over 500,000 times in 150 different countries since 2018. Team UPside, meanwhile, takes a more localised approach. Founded by Sulaiman Iqbal, a third-year undergraduate at Jesus College, they provide free education and careers advice to young people in Southall, West London. It’s been immensely successful, essentially doing the access work that Cambridge isn’t.

“The most disadvantaged applicants are still massively underrepresented at the university, and the oft-touted ‘70%’ figure smooths over the real picture”

These projects have all contributed to increasing the proportion of Cambridge admissions from state schools, but student-led projects and organisations can only do so much. The most disadvantaged applicants are still massively underrepresented at the university, and the oft-touted ‘70%’ figure smooths over the real picture.

The truth about state school admissions

Students educated in state grammar schools are significantly overrepresented at Cambridge, and in 2020 they enjoyed the highest application success rate of any group (28.5%). This matters – grammar schools don’t help social mobility and are unreflective of the population at large, disproportionately accepting children from economically advantaged backgrounds.

“This matters - grammar schools don’t help social mobility and are unreflective of the population at large, disproportionately accepting children from economically advantaged background”

People educated in state comprehensives (attended by around 90% of children nationally) constitute a minority of Cambridge’s students. In 2020 they represented only 27.3% of the total intake, and while around 7% came from sixth-form colleges, many of these students did their GCSEs in private or grammar schools. Regional disparities are also significant – Londoners are massively overrepresented at Cambridge, largely because so many of the highest-performing schools are in London.

Increasing competition

The real story is that although the state-educated might be constituting a higher proportion of UK admissions each year, this means substantively little if you’re a pupil at a state comprehensive who wants to enter Cambridge’s hallowed halls. The proportion of students admitted to Cambridge from the UK has declined over the last several years to 75% in 2020. The increased intake of international students hasn’t been accompanied by an equally significant expansion in the university, so one more international student means one less student from the UK. The number of 18-year-olds in the UK is projected to be 20% higher in 2030 than in 2018, so the odds for state school applicants of being admitted to Cambridge are set to further decline. The ground may be becoming more level, but the island is shrinking.

It doesn’t follow that Cambridge should reduce its international intake; increased diversity enriches the university’s environment and allows it to cement its international prestige. But this doesn’t have to collide with Cambridge’s responsibility to British society, a responsibility which the university is currently abdicating. If Cambridge doesn’t dramatically expand, it will inevitably become harder for applicants in Britain’s most underfunded state schools to gain admission into the university.

What is Cambridge’s purpose?

Cambridge is set to become more inaccessible even as it becomes less important for social mobility. The Cambridge brand continues to confer an advantage to graduates, but the university is no longer an all-important pipeline to elite institutions. The BBC’s Director-General recently resolved that Oxbridge graduates will no longer enjoy a fast track to the top of the company. A decade ago, moreover, a fifth of the chief executives of Britain’s 100 largest companies were Oxbridge graduates – that’s now down to one in ten. This trend will likely continue as more avenues open to high-paying jobs and fewer firms care about the quality of prospective employees’ universities. Cambridge, essentially, is an institution of diminishing importance.

“The Cambridge brand continues to confer an advantage to graduates, but the university is no longer an all-important pipeline to elite institutions”

So what becomes of the university in this changing world? Perhaps it could adapt to live up to its claim of educating students with the most potential. The first step to achieving this would be expanding; if it’s no longer one of a few gatekeepers to the world of the elite, need it remain so competitive and exclusive? But Cambridge’s collegiate system makes it more resistant to large-scale expansion than other universities, and more important still is its function as a money-making machine, in line with the changing role of universities nationally. International students pay at least twice as much in fees as UK students do; what financial incentive does the university have to make itself more accessible to deprived pupils in Britain’s state comprehensives?

If Cambridge takes the easy option and continues on its current trajectory, it will likely retain its character and international prestige, even as many other universities transform themselves to focus more on online mass education. But it will become steadily less relevant to the country within which it is situated, and whose ruling class it has helped produce for centuries. This is the question at the centre of Cambridge’s identity crisis: what is to be its relationship with Britain? Without significant transformation, it won’t be a strong one.