<p>Paragraph 4... "...Duke University's sale of freshman places to rich kids..."</p>
<p>WSJ ran an article a few years ago on economic diversity at top colleges, and they blasted Duke for the spike in the number of "development cases" it admitted in the late 1990's (during the middle of its 2Billion$ fund-raising campaign). Though the article points out that ALL selective privates practice this sort of thing--mentioning Stanford and MIT as examples--haters and fools like to pretend this is uniquely Duke. </p>
<p>The plain truth: If your family wants to donate millions to any college, your chances of admission there will increase, especially if the school is in the middle of an endowment drive. HYP were built that way.</p>
<p>This is such a complex issue, so I will go on a little rant here...</p>
<p>On one hand, as a 'non-development-case' alum and parent of two potential Dukies, the so-called sale of slots to less qualified rich kids galls me to the bone. I am quite able to believe that certain kids were given slots that they did not deserve due to family money and took the place of some really hard-working ultra-talented middle class kids. Welcome to America, folks. It sucks and soon when the estate tax is rolled back, we will be well on our way to 18th century France or 20th Century Brazil. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I agree with GreenShirt - how do you think HYP etc came to have 'more money than God' over the centuries? More recently, was our current prez aka W tearing up his prep school academically prior to Yale? </p>
<p>It's pretty easy to sit on top of the hill boots off like HYP and take shots at those still on the slope. You could argue that the rise of 'new money' schools like Duke, WashU, Rice, Emory has put the Ivies, UChi, Hopkins, MITs on notice that they don't automatically get all the best and richest, leading to more access to a top-flight affordable education outside a handful of old-money schools. Think of it as income and opportunity redistribution coming from rich people who like to see their name on a cornerstone or professor chair not a tax return. </p>
<p>Posner has many interesting things to say on many topics, read him and think - but I wonder how much if any of the quote is motivated by his affliliation with UChicago, one of the prominent schools that has been overtaken by Duke - in the undergraduate rankings at least. I think academically UChicago is as good if not better than any school in the world and has been for a long time, so it is understandable that it's faculty would bristle at being perceived as 'lower' than a relative upstart like Duke or WashU. </p>
<p>According to 2005 USNWR numbers, Duke's alumni giving rate was 46% compared to 29% for UChi. I know that Duke DID in fact have a huge capital campaign to boost their endowment to be on par at least with the older (richer) members of the top 20. This buys us
- more scholarships/grant/aid money for middle class students like my kids and yours
- more facilities upgrades - or do you like Trent the way it was in 1977?
- more money to retain and attract our best faculty, who WILL bolt for HYP when they offer double what Duke can afford. Just like you would.</p>
<p>Obviously if a university like Duke or any other goes overboard in this practice it will hurt their overall academic rep (like in this article) so they are naturally reigned in by the competitive forces that govern top university admissions and reputations. </p>
<p>Sorry for the length of this post - I hope you form your opinion of Duke or any school based on the entire picture, not just a quote here and there.</p>
<p>My son is a freshman at Duke. He is the oldest of six kids from a two parent, single income family. He is not a legacy, URM, or athletic recruit, and we receive financial aid. Obviously this is just one case, but it is our case.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>indydukie,</p>
<p>Excellent post. Right now there is much discussion on the Stanford forum about merit aid, particularly in athletics. I have no issue with merit aid, particularly from schools the have "more money than God". However, that is not their policy.</p>
<p>Duke has 40% kids on financial aid which puts it in the top 5 I think, top 10 for sure.</p>
<p>40% is a healthy number, although that means 60% of families have 120K worth of income/savings to contribute, which is impressive. </p>
<p>Eagle - 'their' referring to Duke or Stanford? We know Duke gives Merit aid, AB Duke, Robertson, etc. Why is this so wrong? We have $$$ incentives for every other aspect of American life, why should academics be any different?</p>
<p>Indydukie,</p>
<p>Sorry if I was not clear. Let me parse it a bit better:</p>
<ul>
<li>I think merit aid is fine. For the reasons you describe.</li>
<li>Many who joined in the discussion on the Stanford thread were against merit aid for academics. They feel that it is a sign that a school can not compete against the "big boys". Obviously I disagree with that position.</li>
</ul>
<p>However, I think that schools should provide for 100% of the financial need of their students before merit aid, i.e. athletic or academic. Duke is one of the few schools that does this.</p>