DukeEngorge

DukeEngage, established only four short years ago in 2007, has experienced an almost unprecedented rise to prominence. In the 2011 summer alone, more than 400 undergraduates participated in domestic and international projects. While we laud the service-oriented spirit and sense of civic engagement instilled in the student body by DukeEngage, we caution against further expansion of the program. As DukeEngage Executive Director Eric Mlyn noted, we will arrive at a tipping point after which greater program size adversely affects DukeEngage quality. Today’s editorial will be the first in a two-part series that examines the program’s growth with a critical eye.

The primary factor contributing to the ever-increasing number of DukeEngagers on a yearly basis is simply an increase in student demand to participate. Last year’s University applicant pool reflected this, as DukeEngage surpassed men’s basketball as the most cited reason for wanting to attend Duke. On-campus student ambassadors for the program are taking on an increased role in publicizing personal experiences and stimulating other students to follow in their footsteps. More telling, the number of DukeEngage applicants increased 20 percent between 2009 and 2010.

We question, however, the true interests of a portion of these applicants. While some—perhaps a majority—are driven by a desire to undergo a transformational experience and immerse themselves in projects, a nontrivial minority pursues DukeEngage simply to garner an accolade to list on their resumes. Indeed, these pre-professionally minded students may view DukeEngage as a “safety option” (with an admissions rate of nearly 50 percent for certain programs) for a productive summer in comparison to highly competitive internships.

We advocate for a more selective admissions process across all programs. The efficacy of the DukeEngage goal—that is, to allow students to reflect on privileges afforded to them while inspiring them to extend these privileges to underserved communities—is severely diminished when all participants are not properly motivated. A greater degree of selectivity is instrumental in filtering out resume-padding students. We recognize the need to offer DukeEngage to all genuinely interested students, but the integrity of the program must also be maintained.

Equally worth considering is the expansion-quality trade-off that is inherent to scaling DukeEngage to additional locations. Students cite strong on-site faculty mentorship as one of the key components of a successful DukeEngage experience. Professors lend the necessary expertise and guidance to appropriately direct summer projects, which in turn incentivizes program participants to take the opportunity more seriously. It is unreasonable to expect students to integrate into and affect new communities in eight short weeks without this institutional support, but this is precisely the plight that some DukeEngagers face in newer programs. Haphazardly extending DukeEngage simply in response to increased demand will necessarily reduce its value for students.

We fear that rapid expansion of the program without proportionately scaling faculty supporters or deterring uninspired participants may undermine its overall mission. But sometimes, the issue might lie with the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of partner nongovernmental organizations. Indeed, DukeEngage’s ability to properly vet supporting organizations is one constraint on the program’s growth that we will discuss in tomorrow’s editorial.