.png)
5 hours ago
4
As a comprehensive-school-educated alumnus of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, I was dismayed to read your recent article on the college’s new admissions approach (Cambridge college to target elite private schools for student recruitment, 7 January).
I chose Trinity Hall precisely because of its inclusive, anti-elitist ethos. I arrived in Cambridge from the Midlands (an underrepresented geographic region) with a good state education, a passion for languages, but little understanding of the educational privilege enjoyed by many of my peers.
I had never knowingly met anyone educated in one of our elite public schools and was keenly aware that others arrived better prepared, although not more able. Despite this, Trinity Hall saw my potential and I closed the gap, graduating with a double first.
As a former teacher with experience in the state sector, I am acutely aware of the limits on how far even the most gifted pupils can be pushed in large, mixed-ability classrooms – although there are many counter-benefits to being educated in the diverse secondary school community I enjoyed. To suggest that students from the most privileged backgrounds are uniquely “ready” to engage critically and independently at Cambridge confuses opportunity with ability.
This framing raises an uncomfortable question: would students like the 17-year-old version of me now be admitted? I did not benefit from mock interviews run in supervision-style formats by Oxbridge-educated teachers, nor from the cultural familiarity that risks being mistaken for intellectual capability.
Trinity Hall has historically championed students who have the potential to grow into Cambridge. If that principle is being abandoned, the college risks returning to an admissions culture that rewards advantage rather than potential.
Joseph Oakley
Ashford Carbonell, Shropshire
I’m a recent state-educated graduate of Cambridge University, having read education. Currently studying for my master’s, I secured no funding, so I am working multiple part-time jobs (and postgraduate study still wouldn’t be possible without the financial help of my parents). For my privately educated peers staying on, in the most part, they have received funding from their colleges or departments.
This is the reality for state-educated students. Being at Cambridge is like being allowed into a party where everyone is dancing to a routine, being told you should be grateful for watching, and never being taught the steps. The university continues to serve the elite it was created for; Trinity Hall is just proving this.
“I am angry but not surprised” was the message I sent my dad when he asked for my opinion. And yet, behind this anger, there is a deep sadness. Because, contradicting the statement I have just made about dancing Cambridge elites, I have truly loved my time here. I’ve had access to opportunities beyond the wildest dreams of my 16-year-old self. More importantly, I have been stretched academically, asked to engage with challenging theories and concepts, and been supervised world‑class professors.
I can only be disappointed by the regressive ideals that govern admissions policies like that of Trinity Hall, because I know there are excellent state-school applicants who will miss out on a transformative educational experience. So, to the state-school student scared by the headlines, let me be clear: you belong at Cambridge University. Please do not give up the fight.
Daisy Shaw
Cambridge
I read with shock and sadness of the shift in admissions policy at Trinity Hall towards targeting privately educated students. I attended the college from 1978 to 1981, and believe I benefited considerably from two admission policy decisions taken shortly before – namely to admit women and to admit on academic merit regardless of school background.
To learn that the college (with a 26% admission rate from private schools against the 6%-7% of pupils privately educated nationally) has decided to favour the private system in some subjects is an extraordinary step away from equality of opportunity in the direction of class and economic privilege. To say that these students “arrive at Cambridge with expertise and interests that align well with the intellectual demands” abrogates what I see as a large part of the role of a Cambridge education in instilling such expertise and interests and suggests that the college undervalues state-educated students and wishes to become a finishing school for the rich. Does the college have no insight into the image this projects?
I wholeheartedly disagree with this shameful policy. Even if, as the college’s master wrote to me, it only applies to a few subjects, it is inexcusable. I urge the college to rectify this situation. Meanwhile, I would encourage fellow alumni to vote with their wallets and reconsider any donations or bequests they have planned.
Prof Douglas Robinson
Dos Torres, Córdoba, Spain
