Depending on who you talk to, there are those who believe that nepotism is alive and well behind the scenes of Cambridge’s student theatre. Yet surely such a jaded and clichéd phrase as ‘it’s not what you know, but who’ has no place whatsoever in the vibrant student-led and egalitarian atmosphere that surrounds the theatre and performing arts in Cambridge. A world where the next Fry and Laurie, or Mitchell and Webb may spring forth at any moment.

In Stephen Fry’s autobiography he mentions the 1980 Footlights Pantomime, The Snow Queen, in which he, Hugh Laurie and Emma Thompson all starred. There are two ways this could be taken. One is linked to this idea of nepotism, as it was clear that they were a group of chums doing what they loved, perhaps even a clique.

Or perhaps their friendship was a by-product of putting on a show together, and their place in that show down simply to the talent with which the three found their later fame – already present, even in embryonic form, during their time in Cambridge.

Does a nepotistic ethos exist in Cambridge, or doesn’t it? 34 years separate Fry’s 1980 pantomime from 2014’s offering, and yet it appears that the debate surrounding nepotism in the Cambridge arts scene is still relevant. Indeed, worthy of column inches dedicated to the subject.

There appears, as with many things in Cambridge, to be a two-tier approach towards the performing arts. The gap between the camaraderie felt in some societies such as Gilbert & Sullivan and the professionalism of the top billing ADC shows can be very stark. There is little doubt that you see the same faces appear in a G&S production time after time, despite their tradition of holding open ‘sing-throughs’ before each show is opened to audition.

The difference, of course, is in the title. The ADC is a theatre, G&S a society. Within that template it stands to reason that the competitiveness of the ADC is a far fairer representation of what the professional circuit is like, whereas G&S is a more holistic and ultimately ‘done-for-fun’ kind of enterprise. Simply put, not everyone will make the grade for an ADC show, but does that equate to nepotism if the pool of talent is actually rather small in any given year?

The accusation is not limited merely to the theatrical side of the Cambridge arts scene. In the case of groups such as the Opera Society (CUOS), the Pops Orchestra (CUPO) and the Show Choir, there is a range of personal experience that attests to both sides of the debate.

As Melissa*, a regular performer with CUPO, has said: “if you know the right people, you’ve got more chance [of being successful at audition]”. Or Ellie’s* analysis of her two failed attempts to get into Show Choir in second and third year, despite singing lessons and regular singing with a choir, which means she “feels as though it’s a case of [her] not being visible on the circuit” – she even cites frequently receiving positive feedback after auditions.

Clearly Melissa and Ellie do not perceive nepotism as limited purely to the interconnectedness of the ADC and Corpus Playroom, but a phenomenon that extends throughout the Cambridge musical scene. As for CUOS, it is true that here there is a clearer link between the choral scholars and chapel choirs, but this also does not guarantee success. The CUOS website itself says that “It is the hard work of determined students that enable CUOS to thrive”, an ethos surely contradictory to the accusation of nepotism.

The impression that this is a close-knit group of people does linger, however, and this is one that, according to Zarah*, isn’t entirely incorrect. A choral scholar and regular performer with CUOS, among others, she is well placed to offer a more immediate viewpoint.

I ask her if it isn’t as much ‘who you know’, but perhaps ‘what circle you belong to’? The Music and English courses at Cambridge allow a natural flow of people between them and the performing arts. To many this reeks of an ideal breeding ground for nepotism, but as Zarah* points out it is “easy to become part of [this circle]” and supports this with the fact that she has “been to auditions where I’m good friends with the panel [and that] hasn’t meant I’ve got the roles”. These are awarded – in Zarah’s* opinion – on talent alone.

It is far from the case that all those successful on the Cambridge stage are students of a particular subject, even if certain subject groups seem over-represented. There are countless examples of non-English or Music students who regularly feature in ADC productions and musical societies, established through their determination and talent. Santa is a Scumbag was translated by a medic.

In a highly pressured term, with few hours free in a week to commit to rehearsing, producing and staging a show, the success or failure ultimately rests with the production team. With the ADC’s ticket price rise this pressure is even more intense. Shows need to be worth every penny students spend on them, and we expect quality from the plays and operas on offer.

Directors and producers can hardly be lambasted for ensuring that these demands are satisfied in the cast they choose. Perhaps it is more accurate to say it is the differing levels of professionalism between the different societies, and the ADC, that allows accusations of nepotism to be fostered. But competitiveness does not promote nepotism; it simply prepares you for the harsh realities outside of the Cambridge student theatre scene.

* names have been changed upon request