Social Mobility in Cambridge: The Power of Access and Outreach

Why is outreach important? Personal and practical

Outreach is essential for many reasons. There is a clear disparity between admissions from state schools and admissions from private schools to Cambridge; in 2024, 27.3% of offers went to privately educated applicants, in comparison to the 5.9% of the population who are privately educated. Whilst numbers of state-schooled admissions are increasing, they are not in line with the general population and there is clearly work to be done.

State-schooled and working-class students are pitted against applicants from schools who funnel multiple students into Oxbridge every year, and outreach endeavours to give these students the best chance possible. Access and outreach also make Oxbridge seem like a viable option for students from schools with low progression to both Oxbridge and to higher education. There is practical evidence that targeted outreach, encompassing webinars, residential visits, and supervisions, has the capacity to increase the numbers of state-schooled and working-class applicants and offer-holders. I spoke to Chris Scott, the Tutor for Admissions and Outreach at Gonville and Caius College, for a little bit more information about the concrete outcomes of these outreach schemes.

In 2020, offers at Caius were the lowest of any college for state schools. Since then, the Access and Outreach department has channelled a great deal of investment into schemes that both help to prepare applicants for Cambridge applications and to increase aspiration for applications from these institutions. The material impact of this is incredibly visible; by the time that offers were made for the 2026 admission cycle, Caius ranked 4th of all colleges for offers made to state school applicants, and 82% of offer-holders hail from state schools. Scott remarked that this evidence highlights the importance of funding for outreach schemes, as the channelling of funds into outreach from Caius has led to a considerable increase in the number of students at Cambridge from state-schooled and working-class backgrounds. The practical benefit of outreach is incredibly obvious.

Students at Cambridge also have deeply personal and important connections to outreach.

To discern why there is such strong student-led advocacy for outreach, and the difference that this has the potential to make on admissions, I spoke to Charlie Forgacz-Cooper, the Vice-President of the Cambridge University Access and Outreach Society. Lots of students who volunteer with outreach have been beneficiaries of schemes and feel a responsibility to give back to the college or department that made their Oxbridge application possible. Forgacz-Cooper took part in an outreach residential at Jesus College, the college he ultimately ended up attending to study History, matriculating in 2023. He made the point that applicants from state schools only feel compelled to apply if they feel familiar and comfortable with the prospect of university and Oxbridge. This is something that outreach can help with, with Forgacz-Cooper as a clear example. He used the familiarity that he gained from teacher-based advocacy at his school, and the outreach scheme from Jesus College, to see Oxbridge as a real and concrete option.

This is how student-driven outreach emerges, and Forgacz-Cooper now helps to pioneer a university-wide mentoring and access scheme, which is growing every year, evidencing why outreach is important, both on a practical and personal level.

Scrapping state school targets and Grammar school admissions

To discern how exactly outreach becomes more inclusive and sensitive to social backgrounds, it’s important to touch on the recent scrapping of state school admissions targets by the University and discuss the difference between state school outreach and non-selective school outreach.

Cambridge is now advocating for a more nuanced approach to indicating deprivation, attempting to focus on more indicators than simply a state school background. This attempts to take into account that when setting state school targets, they include grammar schools and high-performing non-selective schools with high progression to university and Oxbridge. To assess the impact and importance of broadening these targets, I spoke to Neve Mumford, who served as the Access Officer on the Gonville and Caius JCR from 2024-2025.

Mumford agrees that socioeconomic disadvantage is a lot broader than just being from a state school or not. Outreach needs to target people from different backgrounds, with specific techniques. The importance, for her, is focusing on schools and areas with low progression to higher education and Oxbridge, and this is why she believes broader targets for widening access are a good thing. They allow for more nuanced targeting of individuals and areas, rather than requiring blanket quotas that may end up providing support to institutions that do not need it the most.

Link areas, or not?

Link areas are hallmarks of the Oxbridge approach to access and outreach. The collegiate system means that each college can provide attention to a specific area of the United Kingdom, allowing for consistent and specific strategies. On the whole, this does work, as it means that a specific college can provide meaningful development and attention to institutions. However, it is still important to acknowledge the shortcomings of link areas, such as coverage of certain regions like the devolved nations and the North of England, which means that people and schools can very easily slip through the cracks. If colleges do not have a strong enough presence in these areas, which happens often with less-represented areas, then the impact of link areas is significantly depleted. The problem here is active and consistent presence in the link areas, rather than just residential and visit-focused outreach.

Neve Mumford argues that link areas are incredibly powerful, as they can foster the idea of Oxbridge in disadvantaged students’ lives from very early on, and create a “presence throughout your entire educational career”. Children on college visits can become invested in the idea of studying at Cambridge, meaning that when it comes to UCAS applications, Cambridge is immediately a potential option for them. This makes a world of difference, as rather than being introduced to Oxbridge applications at post-16 education, students have the idea in the back of their minds from as early as Year 6. An approach that doesn’t use link areas is unlikely to have this consistent presence and established connection with younger students.

When talking about the shortcomings of this approach at an institutional level, Chris Scott made it very clear that admissions and outreach departments are very aware that targeting schools and colleges in link areas closer to Cambridge is much easier, and that students do slip through the cracks. This is partially due to a lack of material presence in further out areas, and partially due to the lack of standardisation between colleges. Link areas can remedy this to an extent, as Scott suggests that “some model of embedded outreach officers is a way forward”; Caius has a designated London Outreach Officer, with presence in schools and the local areas, which has been incredibly influential. It means that real data from schools can be reported back and used to adjust outreach targets and strategies. This is potentially what is lacking in areas underrepresented at Cambridge, and could be a way to strengthen presence in these schools.

More generally, it is clear that link areas are useful. But they need to be combined with a broader approach that means more areas are covered and students do not “slip through the cracks” (Forgacz-Cooper). The combination of the University-wide scheme and college schemes does have the potential to do this, but only time will tell if this will meaningfully increase representation at Cambridge.

Admissions tests/state schools equipping students for a strong Cambridge application

Whilst there is indeed value in discussing the impact and importance of access and outreach, it is also worth turning to the specific design of strategies to enhance representation at Cambridge. There are arguments that state school underrepresentation at Cambridge is partially because the fundamental structure of non-selective schools does not equip students with the ability to submit a strong Cambridge application; this is with regard to large class sizes, rote learning, and limited targeted help for individual students. Of course, this is a generalisation that does not apply to every non-selective school. It is also pertinent to consider this with regard to admissions tests. From speaking to Chris Scott, it is clear that there is a difference between non-selective admissions in arts and sciences, at least at Caius, and this is, according to him, “at least partially down to a performance gap in our pre-registration-required admissions tests, which are almost all in the sciences”. Whilst this is something that Caius, and surely other colleges are in the process of addressing, it does invite consideration as to the role of admissions tests within outreach programmes.

Scott also pointed out to me that admissions tests and applications are a big focus of outreach, with blended online and in-person sessions that mimic supervisions and interviews. Admissions departments also seek to work with teachers and careers advisors, holding conferences and webinars for staff in non-selective schools that help teachers in preparing their students for applications. This is how, practically, outreach aims to equip non-selective schools with the skills to prepare students for an Oxbridge application.

A student perspective confirms that this effort into application preparation is necessary. Charlie Forgacz-Cooper put it simply as “teachers keep their jobs if kids are passing”. It is a lot easier in schools with limited resources and funding to take away targeted support for higher education progression and Oxbridge, than to make cuts to legally required exam preparation that ensures students will leave schools with adequate qualifications. To fix this fundamental issue in non-selective state schools, there would need to be significant investment into education, and an ideological shift regarding the purposes of schooling. It is incredibly easy to be pessimistic about the state of educational investment, but it does make a compelling case for the inherent necessity of outreach schemes.

Investment from higher education institutions in outreach can plug the gap experienced by state-school students. The difference between non-selective and selective schools in the extent to which they are able to prepare students for higher education and Oxbridge applications is not going away any time soon, and outreach needs to step in and bridge this gap. The funding that Gonville and Caius puts into outreach is a clear signifier of how this can work; the popularisation of outreach via social media channels has been a big step in this department. Many students that I have spoken to at Cambridge from state school backgrounds have noted their interaction with the “Caius Schools” Instagram and TikTok page, which helps to spread important information about applications and life at Cambridge. This means that students whose schools lack this targeted approach can consume valuable and life-changing outreach via a familiar medium, which can make all the difference.

The general argument that follows from this is that whilst underfunding of non-selective state schools is an issue that needs to be addressed, outreach can help to alleviate some of the implications of this. By providing students with both targeted help, and broader information via social media, admissions departments are helping to address the imbalance between privately and state-educated students to equip disadvantaged areas to produce better Cambridge applications.

Financial debt and continued support upon entering Cambridge: the intersection between Class Act and Access.

When we discuss the practical effects of outreach, we also need to consider the financial, and Class Act, implications of a Cambridge application from a working-class perspective. Whilst Oxbridge may seem like a viable academic option, the students being targeted by outreach also need to rationalise the “huge financial gamble” (Neve Mumford) that they are taking, in a way that applicants from independent schools might not.

The individuals I spoke to made the very clear point that outreach sessions can help students rationalise this financial risk. Outreach sessions do explain the systems of financial aid available to students at Cambridge, and detail the Cambridge Bursary. It’s effective for students to know that whilst the prospect of not working a part-time job at University can seem very daunting, there is a great deal of financial support available for those who need it. In my time as the Class Act Officer on the Gonville and Caius Student Union, I spent a significant amount of time explaining financial aid to undergraduates, detailing both the routine grants offered by Caius, and explaining the flexibility of ad-hoc financial aid offered by the college to students in financial need. This has given me the ability to say that whilst Oxbridge can seem a scary financial gamble, there is support for those who need it, and it is possible to exist as a working-class student in Cambridge.

The practical financial implications of admission to Cambridge are more easily remedied by college support, but the social adaptation and feeling of ‘being out of place’ is not. This is where social schemes come into play. Charlie Forgacz-Cooper agreed with me that there is very much an adaptation issue when the beneficiaries of outreach schemes actually get to Cambridge. However, he notes that the Cambridge University Access and Outreach Society is aiming to provide social support and events to help ease disadvantaged students into Cambridge. Class Act campaigns and Officers within colleges also aim to provide this area of support.

Obviously, this is not a completely successful endeavour, as the inequality experienced by working-class and state-schooled students at Cambridge is incredibly pronounced, and not easily remedied. However, these arguments do make the point that outreach doesn’t end when the student arrives at Cambridge. It is refreshing to see this acknowledged by students and staff involved in access and outreach, and it foreshadows a promising commitment to lessening inequalities in the University.

Where are the gaps? What is left to do?

The usefulness of linking these reflections on outreach and representation in Cambridge is in visualising a path forward.

It is clear that there is not enough coverage of the UK generated through link areas. Students often have no idea what their link college is, and are often able to slip through the cracks. The discussion of a blended approach between colleges and wider university-level schemes has a lot of potential, and it will be interesting to see how this develops.

Additionally, there are still clearly massive problems associated with reconciling a working-class identity against the inequality of Cambridge. Outreach can get students to view Cambridge as a real and familiar possibility, and make an application, but unfortunately, it is the case that they often feel unsupported and marginalised when they arrive. Whilst the financial support offered by college does help practically with existing as a working-class student in Cambridge, it is also worth acknowledging that some of this marginalisation can come from within college. A great deal of ad-hoc financial support can often require students to minutely explain their financial and class-based difficulties, and justify their expenditure to fit within a bureaucratic framework that can be insensitive and deter students from seeking help. This isn’t necessarily the rule, but it is worth considering that there is still work to be done on a college level.

The variation between colleges is also worth acknowledging from a Class Act perspective; not all colleges are fully on board with the campaign, and many still lack a formal JCR Class Act Officer. It is clear that there needs to be considerably more standardisation between colleges on both outreach protocol and continued financial and practical support for working-class students.

On the other hand, this article has shown practical evidence of the importance of outreach, and what can happen when there is mass investment in targeted programmes that deal with all areas. Developing critical thinking skills, showing students that Cambridge is a real option for them, both academically and financially, and instilling familiarity with Cambridge as an institution from an early age are things that outreach does incredibly well. The more targeted approach from the CU Access and Outreach Society addresses the gaps with college-based outreach, and attempts to extend mentoring when those students arrive at the University.

There is clearly power in outreach, and what will make it continue to improve and thrive is investment, visibility, and people who are passionate about furthering representation at Cambridge. It is in this vein that I would like to extend sincere gratitude to the three wonderful individuals whom I interviewed for the purposes of this article, Neve Mumford, Chris Scott, and Charlie Forgacz-Cooper. Outreach continues to thrive and make a real difference thanks to motivated and talented individuals like these three.