Disembarking from red-eyed flights with their lives packed into a single 23-kilogram suitcase, more than 3,000 international students arrive in the UK to study at Cambridge each year. As exciting and advantageous as the experience may be, however, the costs of studying abroad are staggering. For the 2026/27 academic year, while annual tuition fees for home students have been uniformly set at £9,790, international students are required to spend between £29,052 and £70,554 (for Veterinary and Medical students) on tuition alone.

The financial barriers are undeniable: not only tuition but also additional college fees, living costs and immigration charges. When information gaps and exam eligibility are also factored in, the question arises: is the University inadvertently closing its doors to hundreds of talented and eager prospective international students?

Aisha, a Malaysian first-year at Girton, says: “To me, the cost of attending Cambridge provides a very real filter for international students. In my case, I would most likely have had to turn down my offer if I hadn’t received a scholarship.”

“The ‘rich international student’ stereotype is a running joke across the UK”

Students’ accounts begin to reveal a pattern. They describe how most successful applicants from their home countries attended private international sixth forms, or hired expensive consultants to advise on their applications in order to bridge the knowledge gap. When asked if they believed cost barriers skew the diversity within Cambridge’s international student community towards wealthier applicants, the universal answer was “yes”.

Scholarships, meanwhile, are few and far between. On the University’s ‘International financial support’ page, only the Cambridge Trust Award is listed as a scholarship accessible to all prospective international students. But even this is described by a Trust recipient as “mostly aimed at postgraduates,” and is almost always only partial funding.

Students, then, largely rely on local government or alumni-funded scholarships. A student from Hong Kong described this as essential to her own education, yet she suspects that access to such funds likely vary widely between nations. She mentions that in South East Asia “accessibility in countries like maybe Vietnam or Indonesia is nowhere near as good as Singapore and China.” A fellow Trust scholar from Singapore agreed, suggesting that most international students either “comprise of nationalities that are generally known to have higher income” status, or that “those from underrepresented nationalities tend to be from well-to-do families”.

Even in nations where scholarship opportunities are prevalent, however, internal knowledge and accessibility disparities prevail. A student who grew up in China highlighted the regional discrepancies in access to resources within the nation. She also suggested that reliance on highly competitive and often limited scholarships makes the application process “more uncertain rather than more accessible.” Rina, a Japanese undergraduate, revealed that while studying abroad is encouraged in Japan, university outreach initiatives from the UK tend “to concentrate on a relatively small pipeline of well-known schools, so many capable students never encounter Oxbridge as a realistic option, or often don’t consider it in the first place.”

“It’s important to recognise that ‘international students’ are not a single, uniform group”

Albeit cognisant of these barriers to attendance, most international students are aligned in the belief that the admissions process itself is fair and, on arrival, college support for international students is plentiful. The consensus seemed to be that a focus on inclusivity within the UK and through national frameworks was understandable.

Alrhough it is unreasonable to expect a national university to expend resources and effort on attracting more international students, many believe that the University would benefit immensely from cultivating a more diverse and inclusive international community. Currently, even if unintentionally, it excludes an entire class of eager, bright students from across the globe.

One international student suggests: “It’s important to recognise that ‘international students’ are not a single, uniform group. Some nationalities and regions are already better supported, while others face more structural barriers. So, I would say, rather than simply increasing international recruitment, I think the challenge lies in developing initiatives that are sensitive to different educational systems and socioeconomic contexts. That may require rethinking what inclusivity looks like beyond national boundaries, rather than applying a single model internationally.”

The ‘rich international student’ stereotype is a running joke across the UK – associated with business class tickets and branded handbags. To be frank, this stereotype is likely often true. It is maybe, then, high time to challenge such conventions and welcome new faces, new cultures and new ideas to Cambridge from across the international economic spectrum.