In recent weeks DukeEngage has announced several changes to its application process. These modifications are, primarily, an earlier application deadline, a standardized interview process for all applicants and a new emphasis on domestic projects. Although they are minor, these changes enhance DukeEngage.
To begin, moving up the application deadline to Dec. 15 for group programs and Jan. 23 for individual projects makes sense.
This earlier deadline will help to ensure that the applicant pool is more committed to the program. After all, these applicants will have to give up other summer options whose applications are later in the year.
It is reasonable to speculate about whether this new policy might degrade the pool of applicants. Enthusiasm is not always synonymous with quality.
The benefits of moving the deadline, however, more than compensate for the problems. For instance, an earlier deadline will give accepted applicants more time to prepare for their projects and meet their group, which is especially critical for international programs. Coupled with improved training sessions, an earlier deadline will probably improve the program.
Second, more stringent interview requirements are an important step toward making DukeEngage projects as successful as possible, because they will help to ensure that all participants are committed and competent and will get something out of the experience.
These requirements are certainly important for international, individual projects, where it could be tempting to turn a DukeEngage project into a glorified safari. This is not to say that individual programs are not valuable-they are-but rather that more oversight would be welcome.
Toward this end, DukeEngage would do well to reform a part of the funding process of individual programs. This is a pertinent issue because DukeEngage seems to have overspent last year by a long way.
A perception among participants is that the financial structure of the individual programs does not have a way for students to return unspent funding. Creating such a channel would reduce students's temptation to stray from their projects. In general, it would also increase the efficiency of funding by assuring that overpayments to students are recycled back into the program.
The third and final major DukeEngage reform is a new requirement that students apply to both a domestic and an international program. This policy will help to keep the program's focus on service instead of international travel.
These motives, however, are not mutually exclusive. It is acceptable to help people and learn things about yourself while traveling somewhere exotic that you can brag about next semester.
There are many applicants who would be excellent participants in DukeEngage who might not take part if their preferred international opportunity is not available and they are left only with a domestic project.
With this point in mind, it might be a good idea for DukeEngage to offer applicants the opportunity to list three preferred programs-two for domestic or foreign, whichever they prefer, and one for the less-preferred sphere. This alteration would help promote domestic programs without turning too many people away. It would also account for competition among the most desirable programs, allowing students to get a second choice they might be more interested in.
As this column has often emphasized, the spirit of DukeEngage is core to the mission of the University. But it should not be assumed that the program is above reform.
As a young program, DukeEngage has kinks that need to be ironed out. It appears as if that process is well underway, and hopefully it will continue.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.