An unfair advantage

A recent Chronicle article suggests that Duke undergraduates have an advantage when applying to the University’s professional schools. If this is the case, then Duke is one of many universities with elite graduate programs that admit large numbers of undergraduates from both their own institution and other top-ranked colleges. While this phenomenon is not particularly shocking and can be attributed in part to the high-quality education that these top colleges provide, we question whether Duke’s tendency to admit its undergraduates at high rates is fair or healthy.

This trend is concerning for a number of reasons. First, it threatens to exacerbate educational inequities, as it limits opportunities for exceptional students from lower-ranked colleges to receive an elite graduate education. Considering the significant roles that chance and socioeconomic status play in the undergraduate admissions process, when Duke’s professional schools favor applicants from Duke or other top colleges, they run the risk of overlooking equally qualified applicants from lesser-known universities. Overlooking these students not only reduces diversity within graduate schools, but, given that lucrative professions like medicine and law have historically been inaccessible to a large portion of the population, the persistence of an elite educational track risks perpetuating existing class divisions.

In addition to potentially widening educational and socioeconomic disparities, this kind of favoritism is unfair. Administrators at Duke’s graduate schools have preemptively rejected accusations of unfairness, claiming that they admit Duke students at higher rates because they trust Duke faculty and are confident in the rigor of Duke’s undergraduate curriculum. William Hoye, associate dean for admissions and student affairs at the School of Law, noted that letters of recommendation from Duke faculty “have potentially more power and more influence because we trust what is being said”.

While we understand why admissions officials have more faith in faculty members with whom they are familiar, it is unfair to, at face value, privilege letters of recommendation from professors whom those officials happen to know and trust. Although it is almost certainly true that Duke faculty members are sound judges of a student’s skill, it seems equally likely that professors at other institutions are just as judicious in their recommendations. Without taking the time to familiarize themselves with curricula and faculty from other colleges—which we do not recommend, as we recognize that universities face time and resource constraints—it does not seem fair for graduate schools to immediately privilege their own students simply because they happen to know their professors better. Although we recognize that completely eradicating bias is impossible, graduate schools should attempt to reduce its influence in the admissions process.

Finally, universities have a responsibility to produce students who will serve a wide variety of social functions. Of Yale Law School’s 650 students, it has been estimated that almost 25 percent attended Yale or Harvard universities as undergraduates. Equipped with a similar set of experiences, such students are likely to approach their material in similar ways. Because different schools have different academic traditions and teaching methods, both professional schools and society at large would profit if the diversity of these traditions were better represented in highly selective graduate programs.