Editorial on legacy admissions unfairly characterizes issue
As a so-called “legacy admit” from the Class of 2009, I was surprised by the dismissive tone yesterday’s editorial took toward this phenomenon. The article states that the “10 to 25 percent” of legacy admits from each class “amounts to the exclusion of otherwise qualified applicants”—are we not left to imply that Duke students whose parents went here are uniformly unqualified on their own merits? I would add that in my seven years as a student here at Duke, I have met more than a handful of folks who have turned down Harvard, Yale, Princeton and others precisely because of the intimate relationship their family has had with Duke over the years. While I won’t deny that some students do get a “legacy advantage,” this article ignores the way in which family and University ties work from both angles.
And finally, if the author of this article is so concerned with ideas that are “extremely ill-defined and impossible to measure,” he or she ought to provide us with a substantive definition of “fairness”—a term we all love to use rhetorically, but hate to define specifically.
Nate Jones, Trinity ’09, Divinity ’12
Legacy admission editorial fails to consider whole picture
Concerning the Feb. 2 editorial “Reject legacy admission policy,” The Chronicle’s editorial board notes “high rates” of legacy admission “to the exclusion of otherwise qualified applicants,” but does not indicate those rates or show that otherwise qualified applicants have been excluded due to legacy admission. Although probably true in some cases, these statements are assumptions and nothing more. How many among that 13 percent making up the Class of 2015 were legacies admitted to the exclusion of more qualified applicants? And what has been the overall acceptance rate for legacies in the past few years? These are questions one should answer before suggesting a complete rejection of legacy status, and before making qualified legacies feel much less welcome at their university. Also, if we’re going to follow this line of thinking, one should consider the admission of U.S. citizens to the exclusion of otherwise qualified foreigners. Isn’t that unfair, too? On another note, I think the admissions office should clip the board’s editorial and save it for when their children apply.
Jamie Deal, Trinity ’08
A response to “Apathy and other small victories”
As a student-athlete on this campus, I found the tone and ignorance of the column, “Apathy and other small victories” insulting.
Regarding the success of the Duke football team, their recent record does not do the team’s talent justice. Any true sports fan or even someone remotely familiar with football can see the positive strides made by this program.
The team’s record parallels a student making unforeseeable mistakes on a test due to a lack of piecing all of the bits of the puzzle together. Yet students who perform at a level below their potential are not shunned; instead, they receive the necessary support that enables them to reach their pinnacle. Like in academics, positive change in athletics requires resources that are defined by time and money.
Stellar athletes earn scholarships just as exemplary students earn academic scholarships. At Duke, the status quo is even higher because of the academic standard that precedes athletics. The comment made regarding the 109 scholarships is so ignorant and incorrect that it does not deserve this attention. In actuality, the football team uses around 80 per year with an NCAA maximum of 85.
These student-athletes who receive scholarships spend their entire life preparing for the opportunity to attend a Division I university in order to better themselves and their futures. Do regular students not have these same goals? While you are studying, we are lifting, running and practicing every day. Just like you are some of the best students in the country, we are some of the best athletes in this country.
Regarding Duke basketball, our team has established a reputation of excellence across every possible area that can be critiqued. Our team is a national brand that represents the University for its unique combination of academic and athletic excellence; so let Duke Athletics continue to utilize that. A key reason Duke has such a competitive applicant pool is because of this image.
Lastly, if you could run a 4.6 second 40-yard dash without training your whole life, you deserve a scholarship, too.
Sincerely,
Avery Rape, Trinity ’14
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.