Welcomed to Rainy Hall by a bagpipe procession, the Cambridge and Edinburgh Unions debated the motion “this house would ignore university rankings.”
The Cambridge Union (CU) spoke in favour of the motion, despite sitting comfortably at first place in the Complete University Guide’s rankings, and third in the Guardian. Edinburgh University ranks 18th and 13th in those same tables and opposed the motion.
CU’s deference to university rankings was somewhat strengthened by its overwhelming defeat. The motion failed overwhelmingly, with 120 voting against the motion and only 16 voting for it.
Individuals drive their own success and that universities provide only a platform
The CU, a highly reputable debating organisation, has recently hosted many viral debates. Most notably, in May 2025, they invited Charlie Kirk to a question-and-answer-style debate.
The proposition’s debate centred around their argument that league tables perpetuate inequality and harmful competition. Christopher Lorde, President of the CU, asserted that competition between Universities, and consequently the “rat-race” that university applicants find themselves in, is unnecessary.
The argument continued — ultimately, there is no substantial difference between the top universities. Instead of these meaningless figures, created by manipulated and untrustworthy data, Ted Yip, Debate Officer Elect of the CU, proposed that applicants ought to focus on more meaningful metrics: reputation, history and background.
Cambridge University was founded in 1209 and has educated Issac Newton, Charles Darwin, and many other venerable figures. Therefore, these metrics still classify Cambridge as a “better” university. Joshua Delvard, Head of Publicity at the CU, refuted this by claiming that individuals drive their own success and that universities provide only a platform. Universities are ultimately an “institution for the pursuit of knowledge.”
The CU was thoroughly convincing in its denigration of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge “kinda sucks shit.” Lorde cited last year’s scandal in Corpus Christi College, in which someone defecated on the floor. Delvard mockingly echoed this distaste by claiming that Cambridge students find themselves in an “academic Hunger Games.” While the Cambridge Students’ entertaining debating attests to the benefits of attending a top-ranked university, they certainly don’t believe it fully deserves that title.
The Edinburgh Union (EU) led a more no-nonsense debate, arguing that rankings are necessary not only for applicants but also for current students. Oscar Fredrickson, a first-year social policy and politics student, opened by asking the audience to recall their own university application experience. “I wanted to believe they didn’t matter.”
However, as an audience member in a floor speech added, the audience and the panel should not use this debate to reflect on whether they would or would not ignore university rankings, because they either did or did not. Rankings make the university application process more accessible.
As Aria Kim, an third-year interdisciplinary futures student, argued, rankings prompt discussion. By making the comparisons between universities more digestible, applicants can talk over these findings on online forums with current students and applicants.
The Edinburgh students all emphasised the importance of the scrutiny function of rankings. The demonstrable impact of rankings on matriculation numbers means that university leadership must pay attention to them.
Adam Jeffries, a second-year mathematics student, referenced Peter Mathieson, Vice Principal of the University of Edinburgh, and claimed that he would exploit the university’s system if rankings were not there to hold him to account. This accusation comes in light of the report revealing that there is no financial deficit, despite the university attempting to justify £90m of staff cuts.
Image via Jacob Whiteside.