Cambridge students and local state schools have spoken out in support of Alison Richard after her comments about government “meddling” in the Cambridge application process.

The Vice-Chancellor was the subject of a political and media onslaught this summer after she complained of the Whitehall pressure on Cambridge to “fix problems of social mobility”.

In a strike at Dr Richard, John Denham, Secretary of State for Universities and Skills, said he disagreed “profoundly” with the Vice-Chancellor’s views. He said that education was “the most powerful tool we have in achieving social justice.”

One inflammatory Times Online headline read “Alison Richard condemns push for state pupils.”

Other Vice-Chancellors also joined the fray against Dr Richard. One said: “The Government gives me a cheque every year. I have a public duty to do what the Government says.”

But many Cambridge students from state schools agreed with Dr Richard’s controversial comments. “Encouraging applications from disadvantaged students is very important, but in the end we have to let in the best applicants,” said Matt Bulmer of Homerton College.

“If you came to Cambridge from an underprivileged background, there would be nothing worse than feeling like you were filling some sort of quota, like you haven’t earned the place,” said Jesus student James Moran.

The head teacher of one local state school, who did not want to be named, said: “John Denham is wrong to put pressure on Cambridge. Naturally Cambridge should encourage access, but we want our students to get in on merit. And they will.”

In a speech at the Universities UK conference in Cambridge three weeks ago, Dr Richard said elite intuitions were not “engines for promoting social justice” and should be given the freedom to get on with their work of education and research.

“We try to reach out to the best students, whatever their background,” said Dr Richard. “One outcome of that is that we can help to promote social mobility. But promoting social mobility is not our core mission. Our core mission is to provide an outstanding education within a research setting.”

“We agree that we have a duty to help disadvantaged students, but this is not our primary goal,” said Geoff Parks, Cambridge Head of Admissions.

Heads of private schools also defended the Vice Chancellor. “It is the most extraordinary get-out clause for the government to avoid the question: why after thirteen years are these young people needing the books to the fiddled to get them to university?” said the headmaster of St Paul’s School in London.

Under Government reforms, universities have been encouraged to target sixth-formers from state schools and disadvantaged homes. Although there is no direct involvement in the Cambridge applications procedure, extra money is received for bringing in recruits from non-traditional backgrounds. There is also ministerial pressure, such as Denham’s recent comments.

Lee Elliot Major, from the Sutton Trust, which provides educational opportunities for young people from non-privileged backgrounds, argues that universities do have responsibility. “Universities do have a role to play in addressing the problem, but cannot themselves solve the ills of society.”

This debate between interventionist and non-interventionist government policy comes at a time where Cambridge is increasing the number of students admitted from state schools.

In 2008 the highest number of maintained-sector students was admitted since 1981. This year 59 per cent of new Cambridge students will have come from state schools, compared to 55 per cent last year.

But this is still far below the 69 per cent of Cambridge students from state school in 1980.

Dr Geoff Parks, Director of Admissions said: “We believe this is an example of Cambridge efforts over many years to raise the aspirations and attainment of younger children in state schools finally bearing fruit.”

This was partly to do with targeting children a great deal younger, two years before GCSEs. “We started it four or five years ago, and I think we are now beginning to see a build-up factor,” said Parks.

In an effort to encourage even more state school students to apply, Cambridge has now scraped the special application and the fee because it was judged as too “scary.” It also dropped its requirements for applicants to have a language GCSE, largely because less than half of state schools students have a foreign language GCSE.

Dr Parks warned, however, that it would be difficult to get past the 60 percent mark for state school students. This is because there are normally about 28,000 students who score the three A grades necessary for Oxbridge. 22,000 apply to Oxbridge already, which leaves only a few thousand, many of whom might not want to go.

“We’d be very disappointed if it didn’t go up next year, given what we’ve done. We’re not sure though. Pushing beyond that point [60 percent] is going to need concerted long-term commitment by everybody.”

The most recent of these efforts is a proposed one year programme to give potential Cambridge undergraduates who failed to get top marks at A-level a second chance by enabling them to retake some of their exams with the university’s aid.

“This is about trying to break the 60% mark,” said Parks, “If there are more state school students with the necessary grades and education realistically to apply to Cambridge, then we will get more state school students. All too often we see students who have that spark of genius, but have for example not done Chemistry A-level when applying for Natural Sciences. We know they would never be able to catch up, but we always feel it is such a shame.”

“With this new programme, we should be able to get another thirty students here from disadvantaged backgrounds who would not have been here otherwise. That may not seem like a lot but it is one percent of our admissions,” Parks concluded.

Michael Stothard