The lack of university endorsement, focus only on academic achievements, and the undue pressure it places on students, suggests the Tompkins Table to be a pointless system which does nothing more than increase academic pressure and fuel intercollegiate competition. If this is the accepted line of argument, room must also be made for the Table’s defence; it is this pointlessness that renders arguments over its continued publication meaningless. If it has no academic standing, let it remain. A change of attitude from students, acknowledging its futility and noting its failings and un-officiality, means that it can satisfy curiosity without fuelling competition.

“Delighting in one’s own success shouldn’t be diminished by comparison”

What the Tompkins Table does highlight, much like the student ranking system, is a competitive culture in Cambridge, perhaps prompted by these systems, but fuelled by students. This culture of competitiveness fostered by the Tompkins Table is encouraged through a multitude of traditions and methods. The system of student ranking, the nature of supervisions, and the experience of the application process, all suggest to students that there is value in “being the best,” of topping your Tripos and contributing to your college’s academic standing. But this competition is futile, and the damage it can do is reliant on students. A grade is a grade regardless of how high or low you place in your cohort, and regardless of college, all are students of the same university, taught by the same faculty, and on track to receiving degrees from the same institution – delighting in one’s own success shouldn’t be diminished by comparison.

For some it may seem that this contribution to competitiveness is damaging, suggesting that some colleges are better than others with their students being more “worthy,” with stereotypes of colleges pushed. But outside the Cambridge bubble this holds no weight. Most people wouldn’t be able to name more than a few colleges, let alone be aware of what your alma mater may suggest about your academic devotion or success. Additionally, the Table is published in a student newspaper read mostly by students and alumni.

It would be ignorant not to acknowledge how these ranking systems can add unwelcome stress and pressure to student life, and there is no argument that these feelings are anything but damaging to students. But rankings are revealed to be deep-set in student nature – the importance students place on them, despite the lack of practical importance they possess, showcases this need to beat others for your academic achievement to carry importance. For many students who have always been top of the class, receiving consistently the highest grades, and for whom the offer of a place at Cambridge confirms their success and academic superiority, rankings offer a reminder, albeit quite head on, that this may no longer be the case – however this doesn’t have to be taken as a negative.

“The debates over its existence reveal more about competitive student nature than the Table itself does to fuel it”

If it is here that the main criticism lies, people’s issue with the Table is rooted in reactions to it, not the table itself. With a shift in students’ attitude, the power these ranking systems hold over students can be demolished.

For incoming freshers, it provides merely another tool to aid college choice, with some deciding they would be most suited to what seems to be a more rigorous academic environment, and others drawn towards lower ranking colleges which may be less stressful. The Table should be looked at next to Student Room rankings of college bars, images of accommodation options, or first hand accounts of college’s support systems. For some, the suggestion the Tompkins Table makes about the working culture of different colleges may be important, for others it will fall to the bottom of a pile, hidden under other factors.

The debates over its existence reveal more about competitive student nature than the Table itself does to fuel it. Revelations that other colleges may have a larger percentage of firsts or a higher pass rate will grow to be irrelevant if the core issue of embedded competitiveness amongst students is eradicated. While some may argue it adds pressure contributing to an overworking environment, this pressure can be relieved if students learn to accept where these rankings falter and what they ignore, as well as teaching them that they may not always be ‘the best’. There is no need to mollycoddle students, changing any ‘culture of overwork’ must come from students’ acknowledgment that comparison should not affect them, leaving a system of ranking to merely satisfy intrigue.