Cambridge’s recent move to end in-person interviews at all colleges but Trinity caused an uproar. A leader published in this newspaper last week lamented the decision: doing so will make the application less reliable, and less fair, it claimed. The editorial encapsulates the ignorance and elitism held by many who are financially stable, in a distinctly Cambridge way. Not only is it fundamentally wrong, but it’s wilfully ignorant of the barriers to studying here. It reeks of privilege.

Rich people go to Cambridge. Rich people have always gone to Cambridge. But many continue to take the places of smarter and more deserving poorer students, who simply cannot spare the day off, or travel expenses needed to attend an in-person interview.

Sure, colleges offer reimbursement for the financial cost – but this varies greatly depending on the college, and is awarded after the fact, usually only once prospective students fill out intrusive and degrading forms: humiliating. This aside, the money is still needed up front. Not everyone is in a position to take this gamble on the off chance that they might be offered a place, one which they might not even be in a position to accept.

The leader rightfully points out that these college discrepancies are largely to blame, but this is the root of the problem, not an excuse to ignore it. It also boldly claims that online interviews are “worse for fairness”, over fears that they might allow students to somehow “cheat” their way in off-screen. But you can’t pass a Cambridge interview with a hidden cheat sheet: it is not a test of facts or a pub quiz, but an interaction that aims largely to figure out how you think, and who you are as a person.

Finally, the leader argues that “the interview process has the potential to humanise a place that can be deeply alien to students”. Au contraire! This can only have been written by someone intimately familiar with studying while surrounded by Mediaeval architecture and portraits of fusty old men: for many of us, the hallowed halls of Cambridge are a far cry from our everyday environments. After two years of mopping floors in greasy restaurants, the grandeur of the building I was interviewed in made me feel all the more like an outsider.

I enjoyed my in-person interview, but the money and time needed to get here, for many, could be better spent. Consider the experiences of students with disabilities, those working flat out at a hospitality job or with childcare duties or any number of other obligations making travel a real obstacle. A Zoom option is incredibly cheap, and serves as a helping hand many applicants desperately need.

Varsity’s editorial ended with a veiled threat: “College administrators intend to embark on a path that almost every student and every fellow will be opposed to”. Every student? This student, for one, and on this rare occasion, heavily agrees with the University. The leader expresses hope that “wiser heads will prevail”. Frankly, me too.

Lotte Brundle studies English at Hughes Hall.

Want to respond to this piece? Send a 70-200 word letter to letters@varsity.co.uk and get the chance to have your say.