Comments (20)

The thing I find both amusing and rather hypocritical about the column by Kristin Butler is that she herself accepted benefits paid for by the families of development admits and other wealthy donors to Duke. For example, she very likely received financial aid from funds provided by those donors, learned from professors whose endowed chairs were established by those donors, and enjoyed the use of beautiful, state-of-the-art buildings paid for by those donors. Then, while accepting the benefits, she turns around and throws mud at the people who provided the benefits. Nice. By the way, if you think that the Ivy League universities and other top universities around the country do not have any development admits, think again.

Being the child of Steven Spielberg does not make one "marginal." (nor does it make one exceptional, notwithstanding the circumstances of being born). Dean Hillerbrand attended an admission party when I was looking at schools, in a wealthy area--SO WHAT. Dartmouth did the same thing; I can't speak for other schools.

Ok so some rich white kids get into Duke because of their rich alumni parents, not because they deserve it.

But some poor black and hispanic kids get into Duke because of their ethnicity, when they were not qualified academically or financially for Duke.

They offset, and we get a rich, diverse learning experience.

If the rich white kids don't get in the money to let in poor blacks and hispanics doesn't exist.

Oh. You thought life was fair. Answer this: how does being born smart entitle you to attend Duke more than being born rich does.

Geoff Schoos provides some reflections on what it means to adhere to the core value of equal protection and equal access to opportunity in America:

Recently, I came across the following passage that I’d like to share:

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages, artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society – the farmers, mechanics, and laborers – who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.”

The above statement was not made by some disengaged philosopher with his head in the clouds. Nor, was it made by some statesman long lost to antiquity.

Rather, this statement of democratic ideals was written by our seventh President, Andrew Jackson and quoted in American Lion, Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham.

The language quoted above was contained in Jackson’s message that accompanied his veto of legislation that would have renewed the charter of the national bank. He saw the bank as a vehicle through which public money was loaned out to the wealthy and powerful to the detriment of the average man.

The parallels from that time to this, especially here in Rhode Island, are striking. With each passing year, too many in the executive branch aided by a significant number of legislators have placed state government on the side of the “rich and powerful”.

Recently, in my column for the Cranston Herald, I wrote about the power of ideas and their affect on policy outcomes. The role of government in a democratic society is a big idea with outcome implications. The budget submitted by the Governor clearly places the state government on the side of the few against the many. As Jackson might say, this budget is the embodiment of an evil.

The notion that government, “shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor” transcends mere partisanship. Rather, it is the core value of our society. It is what separates us from most of the rest of the world and for so long made us that “shining city on a hill” for the rest of the world. When we permit the perversion of that core value, we lose the essence of who we are and what we strive to be.

(randomly procured from internet at http://kmareka.com/2009/03/22/showering-favor-on-all-the-meaning-of-equa...)

Locomotive: Thank you.

Trinity03: no one is calling out you specifically as being unqualified to hold a Duke degree. If you were one of the most qualified applicants, then great... that's the whole point. No one is accusing you of being stupid. If (and I know you probably weren't) you were less qualified than your peers as a high-school senior and slipped in on your parents' money, you're the only one who would even have to know. It's a beautiful thing, a student's right to privacy.

However, our speaking out against letting your parents' money or influence be a factor in obtaining admissions to a program that is ostensibly based on academic merit seems to offend you.

Airing your dirty laundry and defending your academic credentials is your decision and not the point of my discussion. I honestly doubt anyone else here cares, either... unless you were given preferential treatment.

People respect a Duke degree--or really, a degree from any prestigious university--because it implies the holder is both intelligent and well-educated. However, practices like this can easily mar the public perception of the Duke brand. Which is the reason a Duke degree is respectable: the perception that Duke is a school for smart people or the perception that it is a school for rich people?

All that being said, to the best of my ability I can only guesstimate that "development" cases who genuinely are under-qualified probably make up 3-5% of the undergraduate body, or possibly even less. I would not call this an overwhelming problem... at the same time, it's not a practice that earns anyone's respect.

Smart is earned by hard work? Really? Since when?

Isn't money also earned by hard work?

I'm not defending myself, my laundry is clean, and I would challenge the notion that a Duke degree is "respectable."

Duke has other, far more pressing factors contributing to a public deestimation of the brand image, IMO.

"Is money earned by hard work?"

Hard work and money aren't necessarily correlated, but that's a completely different discussion that's not worth getting into here. The money in question would be your parents' money and not your own, so even if they worked for it, you didn't.

On the other hand, you do work for your grades--unless you let your parents do your schoolwork for you, too.

To be fair, it's pretty easy for intelligent students to breeze through high school without too much effort, taking the AP or IB track and doing well on their standardized tests. I certainly can't argue that it's easy to determine the relative merits of different students when the top applicants all have the credentials of being top in their class with great standardized test scores and several hours' worth of college credit already taken care of.

That does not justify the need to consider family wealth in admissions decisions. Like I said earlier, it is a shrewd business decision on Duke's part with no relevance to academics. It may be a necessary evil as Duke Parent is so fond of pointing out, but I would expect legal adults to be able to function on their own merits and not those of their parents. The same expectation obviously does not hold in the "development"-seeking admissions process.

As is well known to everyone who has followed this board since the Brodhead administration and the 88 brought disgrace to Duke in 2006, "Duke Parent" is none other than the corpulent bon vivant John Burness, former Duke PR hack.