Admitting the truth

Though largely unproductive and somewhat obnoxious, the melodrama surrounding Duke’s dip in U.S. News and World Report’s college rankings raises questions about how the University attracts and selects applicants. Central among these stands the question of institutional identity.

In some sense Duke has always suffered from an identity crisis. Although the phrase “work hard, play hard” inevitably slips itself into discussions of Duke’s character, not only has the vagueness and overuse of the slogan rendered it almost meaningless—it fails to capture the true dynamism and scholarship of our campus. The University has long recognized the deficiency of this uninspiring tagline, and, beginning as early as 1993, has attempted to shift its image away from that of a fun, athletics-centric school to one that emphasizes scholarship and serious learning. Although this push has seen progress, Duke’s identity remains ill-defined.

Given the success of schools with conspicuous identities, like Brown University, in improving selectivity and consistently achieving high yields, launching a renewed effort to craft a well-defined and authentic image could magnetize Duke, giving the country’s college-ready high schoolers something to connect with and hold on to as they shuffle through the fast-paced and highly competitive admissions process. And Duke has much to boast about. Beyond exceptional academic opportunities and exciting athletics, Duke offers unique opportunities to engage with professors and participate in service projects; it provides resources for individualized study; and it fosters an electric atmosphere of constant change and progress. Despite the University’s success in these areas, even a genuine attempt to describe Duke’s distinguishing features devolves into a recitation of platitudes found on the admissions pamphlets for pretty much every school but Warren Wilson College.

Indeed, distilling from Duke’s myriad character traits a succinct but comprehensive image presents a considerable challenge. But if Duke wishes both to promote the most valuable aspects of its community and to recruit students who embody its institutional values, it must define the character of the University and clearly communicate that to prospective students. We commend Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Christoph Guttentag for recognizing both the importance and limitations of this task, and encourage him and the Office of Undergraduate Admissions to continue exploring ways to present genuinely the value of a Duke education to applicants.

Although promoting a distinguishing image remains within the means of admissions officers, understaffing precludes the office from sculpting applicant pools into nuanced and well-rounded classes. Overburdened with an ever-increasing number of applicants from year to year, the admissions staff no longer has time to read applications with the scrupulous attention of previous cycles and cannot ensure that admitted students will form a composite body that reflects university values—or even that the school admits students likely to matriculate.

To ease the reading burden, the admissions office should explore ways to make a fast but fair initial cut. We recognize the difficulty in reconciling efficiency with fairness, however, and do not suggest sweeping cuts that omit considerations of extenuating factors in an application.

Additionally, we advocate that the University hire more admissions staff. The financial burden of additional readers may be high, but if increased attention to applications improves matriculation and produces a more engaged student body, then no cost is too great.