The Big 'Which Cambridge College?' Thread

Hello there, what about

Hughes Hall
Queens
Trinity
Churchill

I'm at Cambridge.

IT IS IRRELEVANT WHICH COLLEGE YOU CHOOSE.

All that matters is that you are in the university. You will have a great experience at any college, and you will love whichever college you end up in.

- Do not set your heart on Trinity because it has a large court. Do not set your heart on Kings because you like the chapel. Do not set your heart on John's, because no-one likes John's (joke). My college looks hideous: we revel in this fact.

- Do not think that distance from town matters. I live halfway to Girton and it takes me 5 minutes to get to the town centre.

- Apply for a college which actually does your subject (Pembroke doesn't do Geography, for example.)

- Check out college websites, just in case, for admissions requirements. I went on an open day at Johns in my Gap Yah, knowing my results, and was handed a leaflet which quoted an offer higher than the standard uni offer. THAT WAS FOR IB which unis tend to misunderstand, though.

- Go on an open day if you can.

- Do not use application statistics as an oracle.

- Do not choose a college based on what the tutors are into.

So are the rest of us giving advice on this thread.

I also know of several people who have gone to Trinity and Johns and really not been able to handle the atmosphere there (they're not known for being welcoming) and hated their time there too.

That is why we have this thread - college choice really does matter. While in doing so we may be reinforcing and indeed perpetuating college stereotypes, from my perspective this is far preferable to highly right-wing people going to Kings and not being able to make any friends because of their views, or very socialist working-class kids going to Johns and struggling to settle into one of Cambridge's most traditional and frankly elitist colleges.

I don't agree. A few people will always be unhappy but the overwhelming majority get on with a wide range of people in their college and find that what school they went to or how rich/poor their parents are is just not that important when it comes to making friends. The proportion of state to private school is not that different from one college to another-most are around 40-60% although I believe Kings v Fitzwilliam were maybe 30-70%. Some private people chose Kings because (possibly mistakenly) they believe it is easier to get in to a college which gets fewer private applicants.

Choral scholars at Kings have often come from private education and none of them have had a problem with "the atmosphere" or being accepted. Likewise I have never heard of people having problems at Trinity or Johns with it being unwelcoming. Many choose Johns because it has great sports fields or Trinity because it has good financial support or a notable reputation in say Maths or Economics and given how large these colleges are it is not credible that they would be universally unfriendly.

So I would say chose a college based on whether you like its architecture, size or closeness to town and river, but don't be put off by one person telling you he thinks some colleges are unfriendly or unsuitable for your politics or background.

Some rich students are socialist in outlook and some working class ones are right wing. One of the benefits of going to university is to mix with people from different backgrounds and different views and lose some of one's prejudices against people who are different.

I think it is a real shame to perpetuate the myth that Cambridge or a certain college is full of un-likeable people who you won't get on with if you come from the wrong background.The sad thing is this puts off the very people who need to be encouraged to apply-the ones whose school or family says 'Cambridge is not for the likes of them'. On the whole people from private schools have the confidence to believe they can get on with anybody and it doesn't influence where they apply.

I don't agree. A few people will always be unhappy but the overwhelming majority get on with a wide range of people in their college and find that what school they went to or how rich/poor their parents are is just not that important when it comes to making friends. The proportion of state to private school is not that different from one college to another-most are around 40-60% although I believe Kings v Fitzwilliam were maybe 30-70%. Some private people chose Kings because (possibly mistakenly) they believe it is easier to get in to a college which gets fewer private applicants.

Choral scholars at Kings have often come from private education and none of them have had a problem with "the atmosphere" or being accepted. Likewise I have never heard of people having problems at Trinity or Johns with it being unwelcoming. Many choose Johns because it has great sports fields or Trinity because it has good financial support or a notable reputation in say Maths or Economics and given how large these colleges are it is not credible that they would be universally unfriendly.

Some rich students are socialist in outlook and some working class ones are right wing. One of the benefits of going to university is to mix with people from different backgrounds and different views and lose some of one's prejudices against people who are different.

I think it is a real shame to perpetuate the myth that Cambridge or a certain college is full of un-likeable people who you won't get on with if you come from the wrong background.The sad thing is this puts off the very people who need to be encouraged to apply-the ones whose school or family says 'Cambridge is not for the likes of them'. On the whole people from private schools have the confidence to believe they can get on with anybody and it doesn't influence where they apply.

So I would say chose a college based on whether you like its architecture, size or closeness to town and river, but don't be put off by one person telling you he thinks some colleges are unfriendly or unsuitable for your politics or background.

(apart from being socialist, Kings is inclusive and quirky and very LGBT friendly - there are people from private schools who fit that well and they are the ones who by and large apply there

If I could cause huge social shifts in the attitudes of all Johnians to make their reputation fictional then believe me I would, but I do not have god-like powers. I cannot change that reality.

People apply to Trinity for its wealth and reputation - this is not a mix of people that lends itself to community spirit. A high proportion of introverts and recluses leads to an atmosphere that is not so much unfriendly as it is highly cliquey - people make small, tight friendship groups and don't venture far beyond them.

People apply to Johns for its prowess in traditional public school sports - this gives a large number of public school people, especially "rugby lads" - heavy drinking, chauvinistic, arrogant and very susceptible to team-think (Frankly goes with the territory). Not just public school boys, but a particular sub-set of public school boys

Kings is almost the opposite - known for being liberal to the point of bleeding hearts, inclusive, devoid of any sort of group-mentality and very friendly to the LGBT community. This attracts the Marxists, who hate the idea of places like Johns, and choral scholars, who are almost the antithesis of the rugby lads (and very often LGBT))

And a number of people come on here saying they would not like a college that is dominated by the sort of people who dominate Johns. And to suggest they go the Johns would be giving intentionally bad advice.

Part of access work is telling people "not everyone at Cambridge is like that stereotype you see in the media" The other part is saying" if you go to this college you'll fit in great, but don't go to that college because you won't like it there"

Never were so many prejudices aired against so many by so few.

I doubt if most access training consists of telling people "don't go to certain colleges because your background or politics means you won't like it, the stereotypes about colleges are true."

The post you quoted about colleges is unfortunately not too far removed from reality.

Don 't open this can of worms - it'll be like the "skeleton joke" ("Overheard at Cambridge") all over again!

Don 't open this can of worms - it'll be like the "skeleton joke" ("Overheard at Cambridge") all over again!

The what

The facebook "overheard at cambridge" group. Someone posted a reasonably innocent comment about supermodels, and it turned into some massive anorexia-type debate I think. I can't really remember...

Mmm. Someone posted that they saw a guy cradling a skeleton and singing to it/himself, and someone else accused him of making light of eating disorders, I believe.

It was the girl who replied on the group to that person's "quote" who's comment was the so-called "offensive" one though (I think). I think she mentioned supermodels... I'm not sure though...

Never were so many prejudices aired against so many by so few.

I doubt if most access training consists of telling people "don't go to certain colleges because your background or politics means you won't like it, the stereotypes about colleges are true."

I'm actually going to take serious offence at you claiming I am prejudiced. Prejudice and honesty are two completely different things, I don't by any means discriminate or judge on the basis of these stereotypes. I find out what sort of person they actually are first.

Nor am I going to judge people for being prejudiced against any certain stereotype on TSR, it's not as if I've actually met them, I'm just going to give them good advice. As much as I say they wouldn't like one college, I can say they'll love another - that's the wonderful thing about Cambridge.