Duke named in lawsuit

[Phredd3]

Is there an out on the normal ED commitment if you feel the FA is not enough? For example, you apply early and get in but Duke only gives you $10k a year, which you feel is not enough. For some reason I thought you could do this.

If you are offered admission as an ED, you typically are asked to commit or reject early on, before you know what your other offers look like. Of course you can reject the offer, but you can't ED at multiple schools, and ED applicants who reject don't get rolled over into the regular pool. So it's all-or-nothing for that one school, typically, and your acceptance is comparatively blind. But again, the main point is that you can usually get a pretty good idea in advance of where you stand financially, so if you are savvy about it, ED isn't all that risky.

[Bluedog]

Is there an out on the normal ED commitment if you feel the FA is not enough? For example, you apply early and get in but Duke only gives you $10k a year, which you feel is not enough. For some reason I thought you could do this.

They do say you can get out of your ED commitment if its financially unaffordable but I don't know how they define that. When you compare ED acceptances with enrollees at Duke, there is often 10-20 that end up not enrolling, but could be for various reasons. Financial being one of them perhaps.

And, yeah, with the NPC now available that you can run ahead of time, you should have a better sense of what it should cost anyways, so it shouldn't be surprising.

[PackMan97]

Having read this thread, no way are my kids going to college. Not worth the hassle.

[Skydog]

Of course you can reject the offer, but you can't ED at multiple schools, and ED applicants who reject don't get rolled over into the regular pool. So it's all-or-nothing for that one school, typically, and your acceptance is comparatively blind. ..

I’m not sure what you mean by “your acceptance is comparatively blind”?

[snowdenscold]

They do say you can get out of your ED commitment if its financially unaffordable but I don't know how they define that. When you compare ED acceptances with enrollees at Duke, there is often 10-20 that end up not enrolling, but could be for various reasons. Financial being one of them perhaps.

Is that 10-20 individuals or 10-20% of admits?

[duke79]

Having read this thread, no way are my kids going to college. Not worth the hassle.

LOL, I assume you're (somewhat) joking but for anyone who is thinking of having kids and would like to be able to afford to send them to a private college (like Duke), I crunched the numbers and, if college costs continue to increase at 3% annual compound rate (lower that over the past 40 years) AND you can reliably earn a 5% (after tax) return on your investments, you would need to save $25,000 PER YEAR for EVERY year from the time your child is born until they are age 18 to have enough money to pay for four years of a private college education! Something to consider before starting a family.

[camion]

LOL, I assume you're (somewhat) joking but for anyone who is thinking of having kids and would like to be able to afford to send them to a private college (like Duke), I crunched the numbers and, if college costs continue to increase at 3% annual compound rate (lower that over the past 40 years) AND you can reliably earn a 5% (after tax) return on your investments, you would need to save $25,000 PER YEAR for EVERY year from the time your child is born until they are age 18 to have enough money to pay for four years of a private college education! Something to consider before starting a family.

I take it that's $25,000 for each child. What if you start a bit earlier and spend an initial $25k on genmod smartening up the embryos so they can get good scholarships when the time comes?

[Bluedog]

Is that 10-20 individuals or 10-20% of admits?

10-20 individuals. It's a very small %. Looks like Duke's published "Class profiles" aren't as informative as they used to be, but I can see that for the Class of 2017, that 19 students were accepted ED did not enroll (or 3%). Perhaps that 19 includes gap years as well (i.e. deferred enrollment), but not sure how they account for that.

[duke79]

I take it that's $25,000 for each child. What if you start a bit earlier and spend an initial $25k on genmod smartening up the embryos so they can get good scholarships when the time comes?

LOL, yes, per child. Or you can be like Tiger Woods' or Andre Agassi's fathers, quit your job and start your kids playing a sport when they're two years old (preferably one where they will be eligible for an athletic scholarship when it's time to go to college) and then you don't have to worry about saving that $25,000 per year!

[Bluedog]

LOL, yes, per child. Or you can be like Tiger Woods' or Andre Agassi's fathers, quit your job and start your kids playing a sport when they're two years old (preferably one where they will be eligible for an athletic scholarship when it's time to go to college) and then you don't have to worry about saving that $25,000 per year!

Same with Doc Rivers...Well, he didn't quit his job.

It's probably "easier" to get an athletic scholarship at Duke than an academic one. Certainly, they give out more of them. Both, of course, are indicative of being elite at your craft. But from an odds perspective at Duke at least. I would imagine that's not the case everywhere, however. Of course, the Ivy League doesn't give out merit-based scholarships at all (athletic or academic). But athletes (and general students) from middle class families certainly get significant financial aid.

[Phredd3]

I’m not sure what you mean by “your acceptance is comparatively blind”?

One is blind when it comes to making comparisons; one cannot see what is or is not comparable. I readily admit it was poor phrasing, but I couldn't think how else to say that.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Same with Doc Rivers...Well, he didn't quit his job.

It's probably "easier" to get an athletic scholarship at Duke than an academic one. Certainly, they give out more of them. Both, of course, are indicative of being elite at your craft. But from an odds perspective at Duke at least. I would imagine that's not the case everywhere, however. Of course, the Ivy League doesn't give out merit-based scholarships at all (athletic or academic). But athletes (and general students) from middle class families certainly get significant financial aid.

Grad school is obviously very different than undergrad but Ivies are quite generous with merit aid for professional schools. They don’t advertise it a lot but it is there.

There are definitely more athletic scholarships at Duke than merit, though there are a fair number of merit ones. The admissions edge from sports even extends to schools that don’t give scholarships - being an athlete is a great way to put yourself over the top at NESCAC and other highly competitive smaller schools.

[Bostondevil]

Same with Doc Rivers...Well, he didn't quit his job.

It's probably "easier" to get an athletic scholarship at Duke than an academic one. Certainly, they give out more of them. Both, of course, are indicative of being elite at your craft. But from an odds perspective at Duke at least. I would imagine that's not the case everywhere, however. Of course, the Ivy League doesn't give out merit-based scholarships at all (athletic or academic). But athletes (and general students) from middle class families certainly get significant financial aid.

Poppycock. You do not have to be elite at your craft in a non-revenue sport to get an athletic scholarship (or an admission because of athletics if the school doesn't have athletic scholarships). At the Ivies, you don't even have to be elite at your craft in the revenue sports although Tommy Amaker does a good job of getting an occasional recruit that could play in one of the bigger conferences. As the recent college admissions scandal pointed out, sometimes you don't even have to participate in the sport to get an athletic scholarship. (I sincerely doubt all 200 of the men on Harvard's crew teams are able to compete for the school.) Athletic scholarships and preference in admissions are ways for wealthy parents to circumvent the admissions process and/or not have to pay for college. There just aren't that many public high schools with water polo programs at public high schools to fill all the college water polo teams. All of the sturm and drung about legacy admits bugs me, because until you address the cross section of legacy admits with athletic admits, you will never really scratch the surface of the problem. Want to go to Harvard? It's a much better idea to row crew at your high school and maintain a decent if not quite stellar GPA than it is to hit the books. It's true for Duke too. Both have water polo teams too.

[PackMan97]

LOL, I assume you're (somewhat) joking but for anyone who is thinking of having kids and would like to be able to afford to send them to a private college (like Duke), I crunched the numbers and, if college costs continue to increase at 3% annual compound rate (lower that over the past 40 years) AND you can reliably earn a 5% (after tax) return on your investments, you would need to save $25,000 PER YEAR for EVERY year from the time your child is born until they are age 18 to have enough money to pay for four years of a private college education! Something to consider before starting a family.

I have no intention of letting my kids attend Duke unless they can get a full ride...and right now, they ain't that smart. (the truth hurts).

To be honest, one of them, I don't know how we are going to get out of the house. The other would be much better served learning a trade. College might be a thing for them, but they'll have to figure it out.

[Bluedog]

Poppycock. You do not have to be elite at your craft in a non-revenue sport to get an athletic scholarship (or an admission because of athletics if the school doesn't have athletic scholarships). At the Ivies, you don't even have to be elite at your craft in the revenue sports although Tommy Amaker does a good job of getting an occasional recruit that could play in one of the bigger conferences. As the recent college admissions scandal pointed out, sometimes you don't even have to participate in the sport to get an athletic scholarship. (I sincerely doubt all 200 of the men on Harvard's crew teams are able to compete for the school.) Athletic scholarships and preference in admissions are ways for wealthy parents to circumvent the admissions process and/or not have to pay for college. There just aren't that many public high schools with water polo programs at public high schools to fill all the college water polo teams. All of the sturm and drung about legacy admits bugs me, because until you address the cross section of legacy admits with athletic admits, you will never really scratch the surface of the problem. Want to go to Harvard? It's a much better idea to row crew at your high school and maintain a decent if not quite stellar GPA than it is to hit the books. It's true for Duke too. Both have water polo teams too.

I was talking specifically Duke, trying to give Duke athletes credit for the time, effort, work and success they have shown in their athletic domain...but I agree with you. I guess it depends on how you define "elite" but I was specifically talking about Duke athletic scholarships and I stand by that those recipients are elite at their sport. I wasn't talking about how athletics can give you a leg up in admissions like you're mentioning -- I agree with that. We were talking about scholarships as it relates to college costs and I'm merely suggesting that Duke scholarship recipients (both athletic and academic) have almost universally shown excellence in their area, but that it's likely even harder to receive an academic scholarship from Duke than an athletic one.

[Tooold]

Poppycock. You do not have to be elite at your craft in a non-revenue sport to get an athletic scholarship (or an admission because of athletics if the school doesn't have athletic scholarships). At the Ivies, you don't even have to be elite at your craft in the revenue sports although Tommy Amaker does a good job of getting an occasional recruit that could play in one of the bigger conferences. As the recent college admissions scandal pointed out, sometimes you don't even have to participate in the sport to get an athletic scholarship. (I sincerely doubt all 200 of the men on Harvard's crew teams are able to compete for the school.) Athletic scholarships and preference in admissions are ways for wealthy parents to circumvent the admissions process and/or not have to pay for college. There just aren't that many public high schools with water polo programs at public high schools to fill all the college water polo teams. All of the sturm and drung about legacy admits bugs me, because until you address the cross section of legacy admits with athletic admits, you will never really scratch the surface of the problem. Want to go to Harvard? It's a much better idea to row crew at your high school and maintain a decent if not quite stellar GPA than it is to hit the books. It's true for Duke too. Both have water polo teams too.

Your points are quite valid, and I would add squash to the list of sports that can get a kid into an Ivy with some financial support. At least with legacy admits, there is a reasonably good chance that the parents are also helping to support the annual fund, the financial aid initiative or other programs that benefit the broader student body.

Having said that, a little nit pick….water polo at Duke is a club team…I don’t think they have preferential admissions or special financial packages for water polo, and i don’t think it will help a student get admitted to Duke any more than any other extracurricular activity. Same with men’s rowing (women’s rowing IS an official Duke sport though, and does offer athletic scholarships).

[Bostondevil]

Your points are quite valid, and I would add squash to the list of sports that can get a kid into an Ivy with some financial support. At least with legacy admits, there is a reasonably good chance that the parents are also helping to support the annual fund, the financial aid initiative or other programs that benefit the broader student body.

Having said that, a little nit pick….water polo at Duke is a club team…I don’t think they have preferential admissions or special financial packages for water polo, and i don’t think it will help a student get admitted to Duke any more than any other extracurricular activity. Same with men’s rowing (women’s rowing IS an official Duke sport though, and does offer athletic scholarships).

Valid nit pick, I stand corrected.

[duke79]

Poppycock. You do not have to be elite at your craft in a non-revenue sport to get an athletic scholarship (or an admission because of athletics if the school doesn't have athletic scholarships). At the Ivies, you don't even have to be elite at your craft in the revenue sports although Tommy Amaker does a good job of getting an occasional recruit that could play in one of the bigger conferences. As the recent college admissions scandal pointed out, sometimes you don't even have to participate in the sport to get an athletic scholarship. (I sincerely doubt all 200 of the men on Harvard's crew teams are able to compete for the school.) Athletic scholarships and preference in admissions are ways for wealthy parents to circumvent the admissions process and/or not have to pay for college. There just aren't that many public high schools with water polo programs at public high schools to fill all the college water polo teams. All of the sturm and drung about legacy admits bugs me, because until you address the cross section of legacy admits with athletic admits, you will never really scratch the surface of the problem. Want to go to Harvard? It's a much better idea to row crew at your high school and maintain a decent if not quite stellar GPA than it is to hit the books. It's true for Duke too. Both have water polo teams too.

No doubt you're right, BD. You don't have to be an absolute superstar high school athlete (in whatever sport you play) to be "attractive" to various college coaches. As long as the coach thinks you are a good enough athlete in your sport to contribute meaningfully to the success of the team, you will have a definite advantage at admission to that school and/or receiving an athletic scholarship. One of the lessons people should have learned from the "Varsity Blues" scandal is that the coaches at these very selective schools (and really no matter what sport they coach) have a LOT of influence with the admissions office about who gets admitted. Rick Singer was smart enough to recognize this and he concocted a scheme to get the coaches (mostly by paying bribes to them) to "vouch" for the kids of his clients, even though many of the kids never played the sport in question, and the admissions offices never really looked into it or questioned the coaches! As I've said before, you probably don't want to look too closely at how these very selective colleges and universities choose their students (a little like not knowing how sausages are made). There are a lot of variables that come into play - athletes, legacies, kids of rich folks, affirmative action applicants, geographic considerations, sex (it's easier to get into many of these schools if you're male), etc. It is NOT a purely meritocracy process, where only the "best" candidates are admitted (and who can define what are the "best").

When I was applying to law schools many years ago, it was almost exclusively based on GPA and LSAT scores. Extracurricular activities or other considerations played almost no part in deciding who got admitted. In fact, many law schools back then published a grid of GPA's and LSAT's and if you didn't fall in the "right" box, you pretty much knew you would not be admitted to that school. Whether or not that is a better to do it is subject to debate, I guess.

[Bostondevil]

I was talking specifically Duke, trying to give Duke athletes credit for the time, effort, work and success they have shown in their athletic domain...but I agree with you. I guess it depends on how you define "elite" but I was specifically talking about Duke athletic scholarships and I stand by that those recipients are elite at their sport. I wasn't talking about how athletics can give you a leg up in admissions like you're mentioning -- I agree with that. We were talking about scholarships as it relates to college costs and I'm merely suggesting that Duke scholarship recipients (both athletic and academic) have almost universally shown excellence in their area, but that it's likely even harder to receive an academic scholarship from Duke than an athletic one.

OK, perhaps. I sincerely doubt that all students at Duke that have received money for athletic talent would meet my definition of elite. That said, I do believe that all the students who receive scholarships from Duke on the basis of academics are elite talents. There are way more merit scholarships available for athletics than there are for academics at Duke.

[Tooold]

No doubt you're right, BD. You don't have to be an absolute superstar high school athlete (in whatever sport you play) to be "attractive" to various college coaches. As long as the coach thinks you are a good enough athlete in your sport to contribute meaningfully to the success of the team, you will have a definite advantage at admission to that school and/or receiving an athletic scholarship. One of the lessons people should have learned from the "Varsity Blues" scandal is that the coaches at these very selective schools (and really no matter what sport they coach) have a LOT of influence with the admissions office about who gets admitted. Rick Singer was smart enough to recognize this and he concocted a scheme to get the coaches (mostly by paying bribes to them) to "vouch" for the kids of his clients, even though many of the kids never played the sport in question, and the admissions offices never really looked into it or questioned the coaches! As I've said before, you probably don't want to look too closely at how these very selective colleges and universities choose their students (a little like not knowing how sausages are made). There are a lot of variables that come into play - athletes, legacies, kids of rich folks, affirmative action applicants, geographic considerations, sex (it's easier to get into many of these schools if you're male), etc. It is NOT a purely meritocracy process, where only the "best" candidates are admitted (and who can define what are the "best").

When I was applying to law schools many years ago, it was almost exclusively based on GPA and LSAT scores. Extracurricular activities or other considerations played almost no part in deciding who got admitted. In fact, many law schools back then published a grid of GPA's and LSAT's and if you didn't fall in the "right" box, you pretty much knew you would not be admitted to that school. Whether or not that is a better to do it is subject to debate, I guess.

There are some sports where one’s ability might not be judged solely on performance in competition, but on certain practice stats. With rowing, for example, I believe high school athletes can be judged at least partly on their erg scores…which is the power they are able to produce on a rowing machine. This really played into Singer’s hands (although he didn’t even have legitimate erg scores to submit). I know of one particular athlete who received a preferential athletic admit to an Ivy based upon an erg score he had not yet actually achieved. He then worked super hard to get to that level because he wanted to be “legit”.

But, to your point about test scores and GPA, having objective admissions criteria has gotten even more complicated in the last few years with the de-emphasizing of test scores. CoVid has played into this, with many colleges becoming “test-optional” because of the difficulty of finding open test sites, but the movement was already there due to a belief that relying on standardized testing dis-advantaged some groups of students.