The issue is pretty straightforward: CRs get lots of involvement but don’t have much power or resources, while the SU has plenty of resources but struggles to connect with students Sarah Anderson for Varsity
Because Cambridge is a collegiate University, its student governance is a bit unusual. Each student automatically belongs to both their college’s Student Union (called a ‘CR’ or ‘Combination Room’) and the University-wide Cambridge University Students’ Union (the ‘SU’). But after spending two years as CR Presidents ourselves, we learned that having these two layers causes some tricky problems. The SU acts as a central body in a university that’s basically very decentralised. Meanwhile, CRs often don’t have the money or capacity to work effectively or be heard by university leaders, even though they’re the closest reps for most students.
The SU is kind of like what you’d expect from a normal Student Union. They speak up for all students across Cambridge and organise big campaigns and events. Still, most people barely know what they actually do. For many students, their contact with the SU ends at Freshers’ fair freebies, free sexual health products, or societies funded by the SU. Very few actually vote in elections or referenda held by them.
“The problem is simple: CRs have engagement but very little scope or capacity, while the SU has resources at its disposal, but lacks engagement”
It’s important to note that CRs aren’t under the SU nor officially linked to it – something SU officials often mention when colleges talk about ‘disaffiliating’. These two groups are meant to work side-by-side on different levels of student representation. In reality though, the SU depends heavily on CRs to get any sort of student involvement – mainly through meetings called Student Council: dull twice-a-term gatherings where sabbatical officers meet with one rep from each college.
This council faces two major issues. First off, attendance is really poor. Even though only 25% turnout among voting members is needed for decisions to count (quorum), this year’s first meeting didn’t even hit that low number. Second, almost all proposals brought up come straight from the sabbatical officers themselves. While usually well-meaning and ambitious ideas, these motions often pass without real backing from colleges who should be supporting and putting them into action.
We’re not trying to bash the SU or downplay how hard its staff work behind the scenes. Instead we want to show why trying to represent such a divided student population through just one central group isn’t going to cut it long-term. Students engage far more with their college unions – which might fight rent hikes directly – than with an abstract organisation sending emails about campaigns no one signed up for.
“Without considered reform, [student politics at Cambridge] will remain a dysfunctional network of overlapping and under-utilised channels for thousands of student voices”
But it’s not just on the SU side-CRs face real limits too. Compared with the University-wide union, they have way fewer resources available if they want to properly act as campaigning bodies, representatives talking directly with College admins, community builders inside colleges plus fundraisers for societies-all run by busy students juggling studies too. Without enough funding or support it’s impossible for CRs to do all this well at once. So again: CRs attract involvement but lack real power; SUs have power and funds but struggle getting people interested.
Another tricky thing about CRs worth mentioning here is their legal status isn’t always consistent across colleges either. Some are officially recognised as independent Student Unions under Section 22 of the Education Act-which means more responsibilities but also better protection from college interference including financial independence. Yet plenty of others don’t have this status and regularly feel hampered by college officials blocking them from fully representing their students’ interests.
So what can fix this? The SU can’t just hand over money since both it and each CR operate as separate charities-but improving communication between them would help loads. One idea could be making Student Council meetings more led by college reps instead of sabbaticals so those closest to students set agendas and run things better themselves. Another possibility might involve stronger coordination giving CR voices weight at higher levels-like joining together statements sent up to Senior Tutors’ committee.
To wrap this up-we’re definitely not calling for tearing down either system here! What we want is simply pointing out how today’s setup holds back genuine student participation across Cambridge and warning that unless changes happen soon things will stay messy-a tangle of half-used channels where thousands end up unheard anyway.
Varsity is an independent paper serving Cambridge University since 1947 in its current form-and keeps editorial freedom because it doesn’t take money from either Cambridge Uni itself or any Colleges.
This means we mostly rely on ads for funding-and honestly expect tough times ahead financially over coming months and years.
Still we’re thinking creatively about new ways-both digital content plus print-to keep serving readers well!
If you feel able please consider donating anything starting at £1 towards our running costs-it’d really help us keep going! Thanks so much!
