As administrators push to admit more economically diverse and intellectually active undergraduates, they are also questioning an admissions system through which a large percentage of students are accepted due to direct influence from the Office of Development and the Athletic Department.
At December's Board of Trustees meeting, University officials presented a report analyzing the benefits of four criteria used for admission: interest from the development office, which coordinates fund-raising efforts; interest from the athletic staff; a student's contribution to geographic diversity; and a student's ethnicity.
The report was made available only to senior administrators and trustees until obtained by The Chronicle late last semester.
Administrators told trustees at the board's December meeting that one in five members of last year's entering class would not have been admitted without connections to the Office of Development or the Athletic Department.
"Each priority has been set for a good reason, but the overall result is that many of our undergraduates are less well prepared academically and personally to contribute to the intellectual atmosphere at Duke," the report reads.
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education William Chafe, who is chair of the Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid committee, said that although the students might not have been accepted without interest from development or athletics, "this does not necessarily mean that these students are not prepared for Duke."
Still, in the report, members of Chafe's committee recommended cutting the number of admissions spots influenced by the Office of Development by one-third and the number of spots affected by the Athletic Department by one-tenth.
The report emphasizes that admitting students who bring Duke geographic and ethnic diversity should remain a priority.
Development spots are allotted for a variety of reasons-children of potential donors, celebrities and influential political figures, for example, are advocated to the admissions office by development officers or other key university figures. John Piva, senior vice president for development and alumni affairs, declined to comment on the practice.
Last year, according to the report, 99 students who normally would have not been admitted to Duke were admitted because of development office influence. Of those 99 students, none were children of alumni.
"Obviously, children or close relatives of donors, trustees and active alumni will-and should-be given special consideration," the report reads. "But often many friends of the University recommend students who are not their own [children], knowing that in the past, these recommendations have/will carried significant weight."
Although the report paints a picture of a development office that too often interferes in the process, Chafe said the number of development spots has already been cut in half.
"The development office has been very cooperative in working to reduce that number," said Chafe, dean of the faculty of Arts and Sciences. "Basically there has been a dramatic reduction already in the number of applicants they advocate for."
Director of Undergraduate Admissions Christoph Guttentag stressed that not all development requests result in automatic admission to the University.
"Our only obligation is to listen," he said. "There is no set quota or pre-defined number of development spots we have to take."
However, the report notes that the number of acceptances influenced by the development office remains high, despite a rise in Duke's overall selectivity.
"If we were to reduce the number of Development Office admits by one-third, we would have greater ability to admit talented students who otherwise might not be admitted," the report reads.
The report also recommended that the number of spots reserved for athletes decrease by 10 percent. Last year, the admissions office admitted 120 athletes.
"The University has to decide what direction they wish to go," said Chris Kennedy, associate athletics director. "I disagree with the reduction, but I understand that the University might not want athletics to be a priority."
Chafe and Guttentag said they had not yet determined the best way to cut 10 percent, but the report offered two options: "Either spots could be absorbed from sports selectively, based on a careful evaluation of the number of incoming athletes a sport needs to remain appropriately competitive, or a non-scholarship sport, such as wrestling, could be eliminated," the report reads.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Although wrestling was highlighted in the report, Chafe said it is unlikely that a sport will be eliminated. If a sport is removed, Kennedy added, it will probably not be a women's sport, due to Title IX complications.
Despite questioning the need for high numbers of development- and athletic-related admissions, the report argues that the number of students admitted to encourage geographic and ethnic diversity should either remain stable or increase. The report argues that, although the school's number of African-American students is satisfactory, the number of Asian and Latino undergraduates needs to rise. The report also recommends that the University stronger efforts to recruit more international students.