Like you, I posted my reply before reading your last.
1. I suppose I am not convinced that all Durham law is after Duke students. As with everything "newsworthy", we see the worst part of the picture, not the whole picture. I can believe that there are some Duke students who can and have po'd some folks. If I'm honest, I have seen the "attitude" with my own eyes. Is it a small group creating a bad name for the whole? Yep. For the most part, the students I have come in contact with are terrific.
2. I agree that the administration is beyond disappointing. I'm not ready to throw in the towel on the faculty just yet, though. Again, I'm not sure that we see everything that is happening or has happened on that front.
3. My student and I spoke with current Stanford students during the decision-making process. They confirmed what I had recalled about Stanford. Additionally, my student has a couple of friends from high school that attend Stanford. Kids talk. My student is a Pratt student, not Trinity, so all I can speak to is that curricula.
4. In the spirit of your #3: Duke students were cut-throat when your friend was there - what about now? All I can say is that my student has not found this to be the case in the least. Everyone is more than willing to help one another.
5. Again, each school has it's strenghs and it's weaknesses.
6. And I really was offended by your references to slumming. You know nothing about my student.
Let's see:
1. Ok if you think it is a small group of lacrosse players who caused this to happen to themselves by prior bad behavior even though they did not rape Mangum, then you are among a pretty small minority here. No prior bad behavior is an excuse for what is going on in Durham now. I personally am not big in to conspiracy theories and have pretty much tried to ignor the sub-threads on how corrupt Durham is etc. I don't care that much as that is the Durhmites' problem. But when I read stories about intentionally giving college kids with a future an arrest record when you would let other go with a citation, I see a problem.
2. As for the faculty, have I missed it and some of the 88 backed off their statement in that ad they ran? BTW, Duke has about 800 faculty members if you take away medicine which has nothing to do with the undergraduate program. Thus the 88 make up over 10% of the regular faculty. If you remove the untenured who might have shared the views, but have been reluctant to let their views be known, it is getting closer to 15%. [Maybe some of the 88 are adjuncts, ie not regular facutly. I am not sure.] But this seems like a significant fraction to me unless some have publically backed off their statements.
3. By slumming I meant, if your child was one who claimed to have gotten into MIT, but chose Duke instead. A few people do that, ie slum academically, but more such claims are hogwash. Most people at that level of academics go to the best place they are admitted. BTW, this is a conservative site and not that politically correct. No one is much concerned that you are "really offended" with my use of the term slumming.
"Duke has long been considered an elite university. In 1984, The New York Times Magazine ran a story about "hot colleges" that featured Duke on the cover, and the following year, in the second edition of its Best Colleges guide, U.S. News & World Report ranked Duke sixth among national universities. (This year, Duke was ranked fifth.) Every year, admissions staff members tell the incoming class that it is the smartest and most accomplished yet; and alumni are often heard to say, if partly in jest, that they doubt they would be admitted to Duke today. "
http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/010206/crop1.html
Rah! Rah! Rah! Go Duke!