When I received my offer from Cambridge I, like many other students, felt a feeling of immense pride – I had achieved something unthinkable. Coming from a state-school background and being in the first generation of my family to go to university, it truly felt unbelievable that I was now going to enter one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. Yet, what I hadn’t realised was that upon arriving at Cambridge, such achievement no longer mattered. The real question, the question that is automatically asked, the question that would linger in pub conversations, the question to be shouted in Revs was: “what college do you go to?”

I was pooled, alongside roughly 20% of my cohort, meaning I did not get a place at the college I originally applied to. At first, I mourned the pretty architecture and vast gardens that I had seen during my interview process, now wondering what my Cambridge experience would look like. Yet I decided that such a minor thing out of my control would not influence my time at university – I was at Cambridge, after all.

However, I was wrong. Being a Churchill student has entirely altered my (albeit short) time so far at university, though not in the ways I expected. Despite the lack of so-called traditional Cambridge architecture and extravagant scenery, I have found genuine friends and a warm environment. Looking back, I am grateful to have been placed here since I am much better suited to it than my original college choice. I am not disappointed to be pooled, I am disappointed in the attitude towards those who have been, specifically those in Hill colleges.

“The question to be shouted in Revs: ‘what college do you go to? ’”

The second you enter the Cambridge rabbit hole on social media you will be bombarded with videos questioning students on the worst college. Typical answers include a majority of Hill colleges and specifically Lucy Cavendish. What I find interesting about such judgements, is that these biases tend to be heavily focussed on colleges that have higher state-school intakes. In 2023, Lucy Cavendish admitted almost 94% of state-school students and remains committed to representing broader society in their admission process. In contrast, Trinity college had the lowest proportion of state school students. I spot a pattern.

This is not to say that every type of college slander or rivalry is rooted in classism, there are other structural and personal differences amongst Lucy Cavendish and Trinity that can be linked to their popularity. However, to judge someone merely on the basis of their college, or to presume someone is more of a valuable connection to have because they live in a pretty building, is ignorant and outdated. To mock a poorer, state-school environment simply repeats an elitist script that Cambridge likes to think it has already left behind.

“Chance is now transformed into status”

The pooling system itself reveals the absurdity of college-based judgement since it shows that it is through luck that one gets into their chosen college, not skill. Therefore, we are judging people for something largely outside their control whilst meriting those for their fortune. Chance is now transformed into status, granting some students a superiority complex despite the fact that they could have equally been placed anywhere within the college system.

Interestingly, these types of judgements rarely reflect the Tompkins table. Although such ranking of colleges is controversial and arguably reduces their worth to academics, it’s evident that college slander is not due to their academic achievements, it is purely a result of aesthetics. Churchill ranks 4th in the 2025 table, comparatively King’s ranks 27th – yet Churchill college is far more often snubbed than King’s.

I’m not arguing that the Tompkins table is a good way of judging colleges, but I do believe that popular judgements are irrelevant as a whole, and merely another example of elitism within the university. We should all be proud of our college, but not at the expense of others’.

Furthermore, tradition is viewed as social capital within the Cambridge bubble, but why is this? Typically, the more modern colleges are judged as being less impressive and prestigious than those with an extensive and elaborate history. Yet this just reflects broader classist tendencies to equate tradition and wealth with legitimacy. Old money does not necessarily mean better. For a student body that prides itself on being progressive, is it fair to continue a century old bias towards those with less prestige?

College rivalry may seem like a light-hearted joke, and though it can sometimes be just that, it is important to evaluate when this becomes college snobbery. When students who have all passed the same intense admissions process still feel compelled to rank one another by prestige and aesthetics, it reveals a deeper insecurity about belonging within Cambridge. We study in one of the most prestigious universities in the world, why are we as students actively creating another outdated hierarchy which we like to claim we have moved on from?