Legacy admissions - Printable Version

Legacy admissions - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Legacy admissions (/thread-24305.html)

Pages: 1 2

Legacy admissions - TrumpCard - 07-31-2023

I have never expected the legacy admissions program to help my kids because I don’t give enough money to Stanford to move the needle, but I nevertheless thought this LA Times article might be interesting to folks on the board. It puts U$C and Stanford in the same category, i.e. schools that would be affected by legal limits on legacy preference. I always thought Stanford eschewed legacy preference in the absence of seven figure donations, but I’m open to learning that I was wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-31/usc-stanford-california-legacy-donor-college-admissions#nt=00000189-97f9-d724-adbf-9ff93a210000-showMedia-liDeveloping0promoSuperLeadSmall-7030col1-main

RE: Legacy admissions - WBB fan - 07-31-2023

I don't know about the case with Stanford and legacies, but when I asked my [Not Stanford] alma mater about them when my daughter was applying, the answer was that ALL children of grads got an automatic extra half point in the admission evaluation. Didn't matter whether there were donations or not. I suspect that kids of big time donors got additional consideration. At any rate, my daughter got in, but she decided to go elsewhere. That was her choice. Of course, this was 30 years ago, so who knows how things have changes.

RE: Legacy admissions - 81alum - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 09:14 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: I have never expected the legacy admissions program to help my kids because I don’t give enough money to Stanford to move the needle, but I nevertheless thought this LA Times article might be interesting to folks on the board. It puts U$C and Stanford in the same category, i.e. schools that would be affected by legal limits on legacy preference. I always thought Stanford eschewed legacy preference in the absence of seven figure donations, but I’m open to learning that I was wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-31/usc-stanford-california-legacy-donor-college-admissions#nt=00000189-97f9-d724-adbf-9ff93a210000-showMedia-liDeveloping0promoSuperLeadSmall-7030col1-main

When I was admitted in 1977, I knew I made it on my own since I have no relatives who ever attended Stanford. But I did notice that Stanford claimed it gave no preference to legacies. Stanford was also one of the first to practice "need-blind" admissions. I thought that Stanford seemed to be the most equitable of all the elites, and that made me proud.

Imagine my surprise years later when I learned that Stanford admits a high number of legacy students--that article said 13% I believe. I was quite disappointed that Stanford was no longer at the forefront of equity in admissions. Then again, I wonder how low legacy admissions would have to go to reach the same percentage as the applicant pool? I doubt that 13% of those who apply are legacies, but my guess is that being a legacy increases the desire to apply...so a little more information would be useful.

By the way, both of my children refused to apply to Stanford, since growing up in Palo Alto they developed a far less favorable impression of Stanford than I did when I grew up far away. They would have been double-legacies, since my wife also is an alum. My daughter was told by her local high school counselor, however, that their high school had sent 22 students to Stanford the previous year, and 21 of them were the children of faculty. So being the child of a faculty member does give a gargantuan advantage.

Athletics admissions for expensive, elite olympic sports are in some cases almost as distorting as legacy and faculty admissions. The Ivies, for example, may not give athletic scholarships but they definitely factor in athletic participation into their admissions and get recommendations from coaches. Filling in a slot on a team will get you admitted over a purely academically inclined student. And most of those sports are not known for heavy African-American participation.

RE: Legacy admissions - Jamesy - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 10:03 AM)81alum Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 09:14 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: I have never expected the legacy admissions program to help my kids because I don’t give enough money to Stanford to move the needle, but I nevertheless thought this LA Times article might be interesting to folks on the board. It puts U$C and Stanford in the same category, i.e. schools that would be affected by legal limits on legacy preference. I always thought Stanford eschewed legacy preference in the absence of seven figure donations, but I’m open to learning that I was wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-31/usc-stanford-california-legacy-donor-college-admissions#nt=00000189-97f9-d724-adbf-9ff93a210000-showMedia-liDeveloping0promoSuperLeadSmall-7030col1-main
When I was admitted in 1977, I knew I made it on my own since I have no relatives who ever attended Stanford. But I did notice that Stanford claimed it gave no preference to legacies. Stanford was also one of the first to practice "need-blind" admissions. I thought that Stanford seemed to be the most equitable of all the elites, and that made me proud.

Imagine my surprise years later when I learned that Stanford admits a high number of legacy students--that article said 13% I believe. I was quite disappointed that Stanford was no longer at the forefront of equity in admissions. Then again, I wonder how low legacy admissions would have to go to reach the same percentage as the applicant pool? I doubt that 13% of those who apply are legacies, but my guess is that being a legacy increases the desire to apply...so a little more information would be useful.

By the way, both of my children refused to apply to Stanford, since growing up in Palo Alto they developed a far less favorable impression of Stanford than I did when I grew up far away. They would have been double-legacies, since my wife also is an alum. My daughter was told by her local high school counselor, however, that their high school had sent 22 students to Stanford the previous year, and 21 of them were the children of faculty. So being the child of a faculty member does give a gargantuan advantage.

Athletics admissions for expensive, elite olympic sports are in some cases almost as distorting as legacy and faculty admissions. The Ivies, for example, may not give athletic scholarships but they definitely factor in athletic participation into their admissions and get recommendations from coaches. Filling in a slot on a team will get you admitted over a purely academically inclined student. And most of those sports are not known for heavy African-American participation.

13% admit rate for legacies doesn't strike me as egregious. You're dealing with a different socioeconomic background than the applicant pool as a whole with many non-legacy specific advantages (access to educational resources for one) that make an applicant more likely to get admitted than a random applicant in the pool. I would be curious to see what the admit rate is for various tiers of household income as I imagine there would be a similar disparity.

RE: Legacy admissions - 82 Card - 07-31-2023

As far as I can tell, Stanford's claim to have need-blind admissions in the 70s was less than candid. This is based on my experience at the law school but I would be surprised if things were different in other schools.

When admitting the class of '83, the law school's admissions committee was headed by a professor who set out to actually implement the nice things the school was saying about diversity of background and need-blind admissions. The result was a class that broke the bank. The next year, things went back to normal with a new guy in charge, resulting in far lower financial aid needs in subsequent years. It's hard to tell how much of the difference was actually being need-blind and how much was due to other admissions criteria that amount to proxies for wealth. Either way, there seems to be a strong bias against those without means.

RE: Legacy admissions - 82lsju - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 11:26 AM)Jamesy Wrote: 13% admit rate for legacies doesn't strike me as egregious. You're dealing with a different socioeconomic background than the applicant pool as a whole with many non-legacy specific advantages (access to educational resources for one) that make an applicant more likely to get admitted than a random applicant in the pool. I would be curious to see what the admit rate is for various tiers of household income as I imagine there would be a similar disparity.

Quote:For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in.
...
The largest advantage for the 1 percent was the preference for legacies. The study showed — for the first time at this scale — that legacies were more qualified overall than the average applicant. But even when comparing applicants who were similar in every other way, legacies still had an advantage.
...
One in eight admitted students from the top 1 percent was a recruited athlete. For the bottom 60 percent, that figure was one in 20. That’s largely because children from rich families are more likely to play sports, especially more exclusive sports played at certain colleges, like rowing and fencing. The study estimated that athletes were admitted at four times the rate of nonathletes with the same qualifications.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html?unlocked_article_code=1U8KPn3rSvvrPNq-KcE5P4-utgcaKub1_sDtwgsMCtZYD662ewgT7L5RT0q0iQOpRpEtR8wcp3w4bluKBfCKyBC17n9iByxghkHtC85l09YzD52PZbMsNvP8hWEAEaCxERsWYrr_dIfO0yp8t1lJEPIdpTesFaqkD2fNKp_9EiFaM22mGlITqJ_W9fu84ja_6pe2tQ5TTKBRoWGj6G9M0c0QSb8SGCzzHcw2lJc-8USNsbBmy5DHrXcVppURZKNmq5fPqz6lUfaWpEhus8XxhIjtWzEsZdSsY_TUH8mNyk2ZQsv0DsY30EPmjIt0IK2lNDu5xtooq68qcTtNcqptT5fZOXDCIBXluzmzxJ-1T3jyZV8cH64Z6cLv1mic

the study is here

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

RE: Legacy admissions - TrumpCard - 07-31-2023

My understanding is that Stanford has moved in the direction of seeking applicants with “two excellences.” That’s consistent with the data showing higher acceptance rates for athletes. The question in my mind is whether that admissions philosophy is a “good” one, whatever that means. I probably could put together an argument that athlete applicants are more likely to have successful careers, everything else equal.

RE: Legacy admissions - Mick - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 02:15 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: My understanding is that Stanford has moved in the direction of seeking applicants with “two excellences.” That’s consistent with the data showing higher acceptance rates for athletes. The question in my mind is whether that admissions philosophy is a “good” one, whatever that means. I probably could put together an argument that athlete applicants are more likely to have successful careers, everything else equal.

In a 2016 NCAA survey, student athletes were asked what topics coaches and administrators should discuss more frequently. The single most popular topic was "academic success and preparing to get a job after college."

A study in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies indicated that former athletes earned 5% to 15% more than non-athletes. They tend to display significantly more leadership, self-confidence and self-respect than non-athletes. 50% of female executives surveyed competed in college sports. A separate EY study (in conjunction with ESPN) surveyed more than 400 female executives in five countries (only 20% were from U.S.). More than half competed in collegiate sports and only 3% never competed in sports at all. The study pointed out that three of four C-Suite women reported that athletic participation influenced their hiring decisions because athletes have intangibles like motivating others and bringing projects to completion, which are not necessarily character traits taught in the classroom.

It was found that a professional workplace is very similar to a team environment, and the skills developed by being on a team helps the former athletes seamlessly adapt to the workplace. There are coaches, mentors, rules, teammates, goals, wins and losses. The former athletes recovered from failure more easily and more completely. They are more "coach-able." They have a stronger tendency to focus on factors that are entirely within their control than non-athletes. Their work ethic and ability to work hard are more pronounced. They have leadership qualities and a focus on team success versus individual achievement.

A separate, 75,000-response Gallup study found similar results, that athletes tended to fare better across the board; in academic, personal and professional lives both during and after graduation. They had a greater propensity to thrive in health, relationships, community engagement and job-satisfaction. They also noted that the findings were consistent across all ethnicities. Athletes tended to earn their bachelor's degrees in less than five years at a higher rate than non-athletes.

NCAA Student-Athlete Outcomes 2020 (gallup.com)

In 2019, the Hechinger Report held that athletes have better odds at being employed full-time and engaged in the workplace. In fact, the HR strongly suggested that career placement counselors were less effective that athletic coaches in preparing individuals for the job market. And some schools -- like UC-Davis -- have a mandatory system to prepare student-athletes for postgraduate success. They have found that connecting student athletes with employment helps drive advancement efforts for school athletics. Athletic departments also collaborate with "Last MIle" training programs designed to bridge the gap to entry level employment.

I used to have an article that listed 13 reasons why athletes outperform non-athletes after graduation. I gave my only hard copy to my boss when my son was admitted to college in part because of his athletic prowess. She was adamantly against athletics in college (she was an excellent athlete herself), but the article turned her attitude around.

RE: Legacy admissions - CTcard - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 10:03 AM)81alum Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 09:14 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: ... I always thought Stanford eschewed legacy preference in the absence of seven figure donations, but I’m open to learning that I was wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-31/usc-stanford-california-legacy-donor-college-admissions#nt=00000189-97f9-d724-adbf-9ff93a210000-showMedia-liDeveloping0promoSuperLeadSmall-7030col1-main
When I was admitted in 1977, I knew I made it on my own since I have no relatives who ever attended Stanford. But I did notice that Stanford claimed it gave no preference to legacies.

As far as I know, Stanford has NEVER stated that they gave no preference to legacies. Typically, however, they have been rather obscure on the matter.

Here is a statement from 2020 by Provost Drell on the matter, responding to a CA requirement that universities file a report on legacy admissions.
Admissions considerations for children of alumni or donors - Office of the Provost (stanford.edu)
If you try to read that statement, you will see that it never clearly states how Stanford treats legacy applications, though the mere fact that they are filing the forms with the state implies that they do give some consideration to legacy status.

In the academic world I inhabit, Stanford is known for giving less preference to children of alums than most private schools - though I have never seen anything approaching a reliable set of numbers on that. While completely unreliable and annecdotal, I know of several individual cases of children of alums who would seem to have been close calls who did not get admitted to Stanford. That would appear to be consistent with the common knowledge I stated above - but of course a handful of cases really proves nothing.

RE: Legacy admissions - cctop - 07-31-2023

A friend in the admissions office told me that donations to the school need to be "name on a building" level before they start to give it consideration.

Also they told me that they consider legacy status only as a tiebreaker when all else is equal, and it's rare that they're deciding between two candidates head-to-head that way.

RE: Legacy admissions - 82lsju - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 03:55 PM)CTcard Wrote: In the academic world I inhabit, Stanford is known for giving less preference to children of alums than most private schools - though I have never seen anything approaching a reliable set of numbers on that. While completely unreliable and annecdotal, I know of several individual cases of children of alums who would seem to have been close calls who did not get admitted to Stanford. That would appear to be consistent with the common knowledge I stated above - but of course a handful of cases really proves nothing.

info on number of legacy admits but no info on the admit rate.

Quote:At Stanford University, 302 students newly admitted in the fall of 2019, or 17.8% of the first-year class, were children of Stanford graduates or financial donors. Last fall there were 266 of those students, or 14.9% of the class.

The University of Southern California reported 1,889 new students related to alumni or donors in the fall of 2019, 16% of all newly admitted students. There were 1,740 such students in the fall of 2022, 14% of the total.

The percentages were higher at Santa Clara: 343 students, or 24.7% of all new enrollees, in 2019-20, and 294, or 17.7% of the total, in 2022-23.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-legacy-college-admissions-18185847.php#:~:text=At%20Stanford%20University%2C%20302%20students,or%2014.9%25%20of%20the%20class.

(07-31-2023, 04:42 PM)cctop Wrote: A friend in the admissions office told me that donations to the school need to be "name on a building" level before they start to give it consideration.

Also they told me that they consider legacy status only as a tiebreaker when all else is equal, and it's rare that they're deciding between two candidates head-to-head that way.

this is the same info I was told at my 25th reunion in 2007 by a friend who worked at Stanford.

RE: Legacy admissions - GK3 - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 05:37 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 03:55 PM)CTcard Wrote: In the academic world I inhabit, Stanford is known for giving less preference to children of alums than most private schools - though I have never seen anything approaching a reliable set of numbers on that. While completely unreliable and annecdotal, I know of several individual cases of children of alums who would seem to have been close calls who did not get admitted to Stanford. That would appear to be consistent with the common knowledge I stated above - but of course a handful of cases really proves nothing.

info on number of legacy admits but no info on the admit rate.

Quote:At Stanford University, 302 students newly admitted in the fall of 2019, or 17.8% of the first-year class, were children of Stanford graduates or financial donors. Last fall there were 266 of those students, or 14.9% of the class.

The University of Southern California reported 1,889 new students related to alumni or donors in the fall of 2019, 16% of all newly admitted students. There were 1,740 such students in the fall of 2022, 14% of the total.

The percentages were higher at Santa Clara: 343 students, or 24.7% of all new enrollees, in 2019-20, and 294, or 17.7% of the total, in 2022-23.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-legacy-college-admissions-18185847.php#:~:text=At%20Stanford%20University%2C%20302%20students,or%2014.9%25%20of%20the%20class.

(07-31-2023, 04:42 PM)cctop Wrote: A friend in the admissions office told me that donations to the school need to be "name on a building" level before they start to give it consideration.

Also they told me that they consider legacy status only as a tiebreaker when all else is equal, and it's rare that they're deciding between two candidates head-to-head that way.

this is the same info I was told at my 25th reunion in 2007 by a friend who worked at Stanford.

I have two questions. First, how big a deal are legacy admits? Second and more important, what is the solution if you think Legacy admits gain too much preference from admissions.
You can eliminate SAT or ACT scores from consideration
You can eliminate Race from consideration
You can eliminate the Essay from consideration
You can eliminate the number of honors courses taken and their grades.
You can boil it down so nothing but the GPA scores. If that happens, I wager legacy and scion of wealthy parents will fare better.
Personally I am all for trying to balance the ledger. But I don't see how you do it fairly. Whatever system you choose is almost certain to have negative results for certain classes. Then you can raise the National Security Issue. Do you want to educate the offspring of individuals whose country is a potential strategic enemy?
If someone has an answer I would love to see it.

RE: Legacy admissions - Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 11:40 AM)82 Card Wrote: When admitting the class of '83, the law school's admissions committee was headed by a professor who set out to actually implement the nice things the school was saying about diversity of background and need-blind admissions.

So that explains it, if you are talking about the SLS class that graduated in 1983. That was my class, and I have always wondered how I got in, being a graduate of a community college and a regional state school that nobody in California ever heard of (where I now work). There was at least one other community college grad in that class, but he was the son of a faculty member. Still, quite a few of us were from state schools, which seemed different than other classes. I figured they went a little wild that year, much to my good fortune, then got back to normal.

When we talk about the role of fate in our lives, we tend to focus on our bad luck. But most of us have benefited from good luck, too. For some reason, the day I took the LSAT was a really good day for me. I was hitting on all cylinders. I was pretty bright back then (the years have taken their toll), but not as bright as my LSAT score would suggest. And then, apparently, I got lucky by being in the right year for a country hick in the SLS admissions process. What the heck: I'll take it!

RE: Legacy admissions - chrisk - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 06:34 PM)GK3 Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 05:37 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 03:55 PM)CTcard Wrote: In the academic world I inhabit, Stanford is known for giving less preference to children of alums than most private schools - though I have never seen anything approaching a reliable set of numbers on that. While completely unreliable and annecdotal, I know of several individual cases of children of alums who would seem to have been close calls who did not get admitted to Stanford. That would appear to be consistent with the common knowledge I stated above - but of course a handful of cases really proves nothing.

info on number of legacy admits but no info on the admit rate.

Quote:At Stanford University, 302 students newly admitted in the fall of 2019, or 17.8% of the first-year class, were children of Stanford graduates or financial donors. Last fall there were 266 of those students, or 14.9% of the class.

The University of Southern California reported 1,889 new students related to alumni or donors in the fall of 2019, 16% of all newly admitted students. There were 1,740 such students in the fall of 2022, 14% of the total.

The percentages were higher at Santa Clara: 343 students, or 24.7% of all new enrollees, in 2019-20, and 294, or 17.7% of the total, in 2022-23.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-legacy-college-admissions-18185847.php#:~:text=At%20Stanford%20University%2C%20302%20students,or%2014.9%25%20of%20the%20class.

(07-31-2023, 04:42 PM)cctop Wrote: A friend in the admissions office told me that donations to the school need to be "name on a building" level before they start to give it consideration.

Also they told me that they consider legacy status only as a tiebreaker when all else is equal, and it's rare that they're deciding between two candidates head-to-head that way.

this is the same info I was told at my 25th reunion in 2007 by a friend who worked at Stanford.

I have two questions. First, how big a deal are legacy admits? Second and more important, what is the solution if you think Legacy admits gain too much preference from admissions.
You can eliminate SAT or ACT scores from consideration
You can eliminate Race from consideration
You can eliminate the Essay from consideration
You can eliminate the number of honors courses taken and their grades.
You can boil it down so nothing but the GPA scores. If that happens, I wager legacy and scion of wealthy parents will fare better.
Personally I am all for trying to balance the ledger. But I don't see how you do it fairly. Whatever system you choose is almost certain to have negative results for certain classes. Then you can raise the National Security Issue. Do you want to educate the offspring of individuals whose country is a potential strategic enemy?
If someone has an answer I would love to see it.

International students are not included in the racial composition of enrolless. Also, in the past, the need-blind standard has not been applied to international applicants. They may be allocating more financial to international undergraduates but I don't think they are anywhere near need-blind.

RE: Legacy admissions - 82lsju - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 06:58 PM)chrisk Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 06:34 PM)GK3 Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 05:37 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 03:55 PM)CTcard Wrote: In the academic world I inhabit, Stanford is known for giving less preference to children of alums than most private schools - though I have never seen anything approaching a reliable set of numbers on that. While completely unreliable and annecdotal, I know of several individual cases of children of alums who would seem to have been close calls who did not get admitted to Stanford. That would appear to be consistent with the common knowledge I stated above - but of course a handful of cases really proves nothing.

info on number of legacy admits but no info on the admit rate.

Quote:At Stanford University, 302 students newly admitted in the fall of 2019, or 17.8% of the first-year class, were children of Stanford graduates or financial donors. Last fall there were 266 of those students, or 14.9% of the class.

The University of Southern California reported 1,889 new students related to alumni or donors in the fall of 2019, 16% of all newly admitted students. There were 1,740 such students in the fall of 2022, 14% of the total.

The percentages were higher at Santa Clara: 343 students, or 24.7% of all new enrollees, in 2019-20, and 294, or 17.7% of the total, in 2022-23.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-legacy-college-admissions-18185847.php#:~:text=At%20Stanford%20University%2C%20302%20students,or%2014.9%25%20of%20the%20class.

(07-31-2023, 04:42 PM)cctop Wrote: A friend in the admissions office told me that donations to the school need to be "name on a building" level before they start to give it consideration.

Also they told me that they consider legacy status only as a tiebreaker when all else is equal, and it's rare that they're deciding between two candidates head-to-head that way.

this is the same info I was told at my 25th reunion in 2007 by a friend who worked at Stanford.

I have two questions. First, how big a deal are legacy admits? Second and more important, what is the solution if you think Legacy admits gain too much preference from admissions.
You can eliminate SAT or ACT scores from consideration
You can eliminate Race from consideration
You can eliminate the Essay from consideration
You can eliminate the number of honors courses taken and their grades.
You can boil it down so nothing but the GPA scores. If that happens, I wager legacy and scion of wealthy parents will fare better.
Personally I am all for trying to balance the ledger. But I don't see how you do it fairly. Whatever system you choose is almost certain to have negative results for certain classes. Then you can raise the National Security Issue. Do you want to educate the offspring of individuals whose country is a potential strategic enemy?
If someone has an answer I would love to see it.

International students are not included in the racial composition of enrolless. Also, in the past, the need-blind standard has not been applied to international applicants. They may be allocating more financial to international undergraduates but I don't think they are anywhere near need-blind.

and need blind has gone hand-in-hand with the big increases in "list price" to attend, this allows for selective application of "big discounts" so those who can afford to pay, pay more.

Quote:American universities advertise a sticker price that few students actually pay. According to the National Association of College and University Business Officers, a non-profit organisation, private colleges discount tuition by over 50% on average. And contrary to the common narrative, the net cost (what students really pay) of public and private colleges has fallen (see chart).

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/07/23/american-universities-have-an-incentive-to-seem-extortionate?giftId=bfbcd390-294a-43f3-a2c6-7152d068cb6a

RE: Legacy admissions - 82 Card - 07-31-2023

(07-31-2023, 06:35 PM)Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card Wrote:
(07-31-2023, 11:40 AM)82 Card Wrote: When admitting the class of '83, the law school's admissions committee was headed by a professor who set out to actually implement the nice things the school was saying about diversity of background and need-blind admissions.

So that explains it, if you are talking about the SLS class that graduated in 1983. That was my class, and I have always wondered how I got in, being a graduate of a community college and a regional state school that nobody in California ever heard of (where I now work). There was at least one other community college grad in that class, but he was the son of a faculty member. Still, quite a few of us were from state schools, which seemed different than other classes. I figured they went a little wild that year, much to my good fortune, then got back to normal.

When we talk about the role of fate in our lives, we tend to focus on our bad luck. But most of us have benefited from good luck, too. For some reason, the day I took the LSAT was a really good day for me. I was hitting on all cylinders. I was pretty bright back then (the years have taken their toll), but not as bright as my LSAT score would suggest. And then, apparently, I got lucky by being in the right year for a country hick in the SLS admissions process. What the heck: I'll take it!

My recollection is that there were quite a few students from direction state universities in the class of '83, including my wife. The year before it was a fetish over business students. About 7% of the class was from my B-school. That's how I got in. Admissions is pretty arbitrary.

RE: Legacy admissions - norcard10 - 07-31-2023

Legacy counts but on average not for a lot. Being child of a faculty counts a lot more. It's not a coincidence that Menlo Atherton, Menlo School, Hawker, Gunn, Palo Alto on average send ~10+ kids to Stanford a year each.

RE: Legacy admissions - cctop - 08-01-2023

Here's a related article from today's SF Chronicle about college attendance and family wealth:

College attendance: How family income impacts who goes to Stanford vs. UCLA and UC Berkeley

Summary:
- After normalizing for grades and test scores, private colleges in California except for CalTech still have a higher proportion of students from the top 1% of income. Loyola Marymount is the top with 7x the amount students from the top 1% than their share of the population.
- The public UC schools have a significantly lower proportion of students from the top 1%.
- Attendance depends on 3 factors: applications, admissions, and enrollment. The discrepancy is different at each college but the results are similar.

RE: Legacy admissions - Spiny_Norman - 08-02-2023

If you want to get a flavor of Stanford's treatment of legacy applicants, ask Howard Wolf (alumni relations VP) about it. Stanford absolutely gives preferential treatment. Maybe Stanford admits fewer legacies than Harvard or Yale or Princeton (where they could be as much as 1/3 of the class). But there is no doubt that it's measurably easier for a legacy to be admitted than an applicant from the general pool.

And it will be a major change to Stanford's admissions if it is forced to abandon that practice.

RE: Legacy admissions - OCcardinal - 08-02-2023

A couple thoughts:
1) The class being 13% legacies is not that high when you consider children of students who attended either undergraduate and graduate programs at Stanford are eligible. Not only are there more graduate students than undergrad, but on average they graduate at a faster rate than undergrads with all the 2-3 year graduate programs. When you consider that alums would have more than one child on average, 13% of the class being legacies means maybe 2-3% of legacy children end up attending Stanford. Stanford spends a lot more effort trying to console alums whose children are rejected than promoting a culture of entitlement. Further, when you consider how well off most Stanford grads are, how much they value higher education (plus their direct knowledge of how to build a resume that would be attractive to an admissions officer), and the fact that some admits are legacy athletes (e.g., Adam and Kirstin Keefe have had 3 children attend Stanford on sports scholarships), the fact that 13% of the class ends up being legacies seems reasonable. And we shouldn't assume that legacy admits are necessarily underqualified. Consider Maya DiRado, for example. She was a legacy admit who became a multiple-gold medal Olympian. Plus she did so well academically as an undergrad that she later earned a full Knight-Hennessy merit scholarship to cover her Stanford MBA tuition.
2) As for the study about rich enrollees, I find it unsurprising and do not find that it substantiates that Stanford is giving some sort of admissions preference based on wealth (outside of megadonors, which are relatively rare). What the study found was that "if two students have the same SAT or ACT scores but one student is from a family in the top 1% and the other is in a lower income percentile, the wealthier student has a much higher chance of attending — i.e., getting admitted to and enrolling at — a selective private school in California." It further found that at Stanford "Attendance for students from the top 0.1% is about 3.5 times greater than average [student with the same test scores]." But there are two important things to consider when talking about Stanford. First, so many good students apply to Stanford that the vast majority of students at every SAT/AP test score level are rejected. Second, while test scores are important to admission at Stanford, once you meet a certain threshhold getting a higher test score will not incrementally increase your odds of being admitted. What will make a difference is a more rigorous secondary school academic record (such as all the AP classes a top private school might provide) and/or unique skills or achievements (which are substantially easier to accumulate when you have wealthy parents investing in you). Correlation does not equal causation and a study, like this one, that controls for some but not all factors that may impact admission (including the most important ones) leaves a lot to be desired. At best you can say there is a pattern that is worth further investigation. The study itself provides no conclusive answers.