[TrumpCard]

Apparently, the California legislature is looking at legislation that effectively would ban legacy/donor preference in college admissions:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story...c-stanford

To the best of my knowledge, Stanford doesn't have legacy preference anyway, and donor preference is limited to 7- or 8-figure gifts.  For that reason, I always assumed that my kids would get no advantage, so it's not a personal thing for me, but it's relevant news for Stanford.

[TrumpCard]

Apparently, the California legislature is looking at legislation that effectively would ban legacy/donor preference in college admissions:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story...c-stanford

To the best of my knowledge, Stanford doesn't have legacy preference anyway, and donor preference is limited to 7- or 8-figure gifts.  For that reason, I always assumed that my kids would get no advantage, so it's not a personal thing for me, but it's relevant news for Stanford.

[dabigv13]

Stanford offered admission to 287 students, or 13.8% of the class — with 92% related to alumni and 8% with ties only to donors.

Of course these numbers tell you nothing about whether legacy admits get any sort of advantage compared to non-legacy admits. 

In any case this bill may not mean much for Stanford. 

Stanford students received $3.2 million in Cal Grant support for 2022-23, Mostofi said, compared with $263 million in total institutional aid.

The money at risk seems like a relative drop in the bucket. But even so, I imagine it would be difficult to enforce it if it were to even be passed.

[dabigv13]

Stanford offered admission to 287 students, or 13.8% of the class — with 92% related to alumni and 8% with ties only to donors.

Of course these numbers tell you nothing about whether legacy admits get any sort of advantage compared to non-legacy admits. 

In any case this bill may not mean much for Stanford. 

Stanford students received $3.2 million in Cal Grant support for 2022-23, Mostofi said, compared with $263 million in total institutional aid.

The money at risk seems like a relative drop in the bucket. But even so, I imagine it would be difficult to enforce it if it were to even be passed.

[Mudhead]

Stanford offered admission to 287 students, or 13.8% of the class — with 92% related to alumni and 8% with ties only to donors.

Of course these numbers tell you nothing about whether legacy admits get any sort of advantage compared to non-legacy admits. 

In any case this bill may not mean much for Stanford. 

Stanford students received $3.2 million in Cal Grant support for 2022-23, Mostofi said, compared with $263 million in total institutional aid.

The money at risk seems like a relative drop in the bucket. But even so, I imagine it would be difficult to enforce it if it were to even be passed.

Amazing that with a $70 Billion shortfall the California legislature has time for this.  I’m not sure they can dictate admissions policies to private schools anymore than they could tell a family business not to hire the children of the owners.  Meh

[Mudhead]

Stanford offered admission to 287 students, or 13.8% of the class — with 92% related to alumni and 8% with ties only to donors.

Of course these numbers tell you nothing about whether legacy admits get any sort of advantage compared to non-legacy admits. 

In any case this bill may not mean much for Stanford. 

Stanford students received $3.2 million in Cal Grant support for 2022-23, Mostofi said, compared with $263 million in total institutional aid.

The money at risk seems like a relative drop in the bucket. But even so, I imagine it would be difficult to enforce it if it were to even be passed.

Amazing that with a $70 Billion shortfall the California legislature has time for this.  I’m not sure they can dictate admissions policies to private schools anymore than they could tell a family business not to hire the children of the owners.  Meh

[Goose]

Amazing that with a $70 Billion shortfall the California legislature has time for this.  I’m not sure they can dictate admissions policies to private schools anymore than they could tell a family business not to hire the children of the owners.  Meh

I agree with your comment that they have lots more important things to do. It is also true that the State can't dictate to a private university what it's admissions policy should be. However, the State of California can absolutely say "If you don't follow our desired admissions policy, we won't give your students state aid". Whether the State should do so is open for debate, but they clearly have the power.

[Goose]

Amazing that with a $70 Billion shortfall the California legislature has time for this.  I’m not sure they can dictate admissions policies to private schools anymore than they could tell a family business not to hire the children of the owners.  Meh

I agree with your comment that they have lots more important things to do. It is also true that the State can't dictate to a private university what it's admissions policy should be. However, the State of California can absolutely say "If you don't follow our desired admissions policy, we won't give your students state aid". Whether the State should do so is open for debate, but they clearly have the power.

[Mudhead]

Amazing that with a $70 Billion shortfall the California legislature has time for this.  I’m not sure they can dictate admissions policies to private schools anymore than they could tell a family business not to hire the children of the owners.  Meh

I agree with your comment that they have lots more important things to do. It is also true that the State can't dictate to a private university what it's admissions policy should be. However, the State of California can absolutely say "If you don't follow our desired admissions policy, we won't give your students state aid". Whether the State should do so is open for debate, but they clearly have the power.

Good point. I was focusing on the admissions aspect and overlooked the money threat.

[Mudhead]

Amazing that with a $70 Billion shortfall the California legislature has time for this.  I’m not sure they can dictate admissions policies to private schools anymore than they could tell a family business not to hire the children of the owners.  Meh

I agree with your comment that they have lots more important things to do. It is also true that the State can't dictate to a private university what it's admissions policy should be. However, the State of California can absolutely say "If you don't follow our desired admissions policy, we won't give your students state aid". Whether the State should do so is open for debate, but they clearly have the power.

Good point. I was focusing on the admissions aspect and overlooked the money threat.

[dabigv13]

As I mentioned above the small amounts involved mean Stanford could probably just ignore this and do what they want. But it seems like a dumb law even judged by it's own intent.

To get Stanford to admit a more socioeconomically diverse student body, the state will withhold aid money that only goes to low income students. Not sure about the logic of that.

Wouldn't put it past the CA legislature to pass a really dumb law, but the same law didn't pass in 2019 because it obviously would hurt low income students. I imagine a similar outcome now.

[dabigv13]

As I mentioned above the small amounts involved mean Stanford could probably just ignore this and do what they want. But it seems like a dumb law even judged by it's own intent.

To get Stanford to admit a more socioeconomically diverse student body, the state will withhold aid money that only goes to low income students. Not sure about the logic of that.

Wouldn't put it past the CA legislature to pass a really dumb law, but the same law didn't pass in 2019 because it obviously would hurt low income students. I imagine a similar outcome now.

[norcard10]

Stanford certainly gives an advantage to legacy admissions.

[norcard10]

Stanford certainly gives an advantage to legacy admissions.

[TrumpCard]

Stanford certainly gives an advantage to legacy admissions.

Really?  Tell me more.

[TrumpCard]

Stanford certainly gives an advantage to legacy admissions.

Really?  Tell me more.

[Mick]

Amazing that with a $70 Billion shortfall the California legislature has time for this.  I’m not sure they can dictate admissions policies to private schools anymore than they could tell a family business not to hire the children of the owners.  Meh

I agree with your comment that they have lots more important things to do. It is also true that the State can't dictate to a private university what it's admissions policy should be. However, the State of California can absolutely say "If you don't follow our desired admissions policy, we won't give your students state aid". Whether the State should do so is open for debate, but they clearly have the power.

Good point. I was focusing on the admissions aspect and overlooked the money threat.

I wouldn't ignore the looming federal threat as well, both for educational/tuition assistance and research. If memory serves, Stanford historically ranks between #4 and #6 in funding from the federal government. I imagine that the feds have a dog in this fight, too.

[Mick]

Amazing that with a $70 Billion shortfall the California legislature has time for this.  I’m not sure they can dictate admissions policies to private schools anymore than they could tell a family business not to hire the children of the owners.  Meh

I agree with your comment that they have lots more important things to do. It is also true that the State can't dictate to a private university what it's admissions policy should be. However, the State of California can absolutely say "If you don't follow our desired admissions policy, we won't give your students state aid". Whether the State should do so is open for debate, but they clearly have the power.

Good point. I was focusing on the admissions aspect and overlooked the money threat.

I wouldn't ignore the looming federal threat as well, both for educational/tuition assistance and research. If memory serves, Stanford historically ranks between #4 and #6 in funding from the federal government. I imagine that the feds have a dog in this fight, too.

[norcard10]

Stanford certainly gives an advantage to legacy admissions.

Really?  Tell me more.

I know for a few of my classmates, they reached out to the alumni association asking how active the parents were.  it was a consideration.  Legacy status is a bump on the scale, but not enough by itself ofcourse.

[norcard10]

Stanford certainly gives an advantage to legacy admissions.

Really?  Tell me more.

I know for a few of my classmates, they reached out to the alumni association asking how active the parents were.  it was a consideration.  Legacy status is a bump on the scale, but not enough by itself ofcourse.

[cctop]

Stanford certainly gives an advantage to legacy admissions.

I've posted this before, but my friend who is a Stanford admissions officer says that legacy status is only rarely taken into account as a tiebreaker between two candidates they can't otherwise decide between, and that donors need to be at a "name on a building" level before that is considered.

There are other more obvious reasons why the Stanford student body contains a higher-than-random number of children of alumni.

[cctop]

Stanford certainly gives an advantage to legacy admissions.

I've posted this before, but my friend who is a Stanford admissions officer says that legacy status is only rarely taken into account as a tiebreaker between two candidates they can't otherwise decide between, and that donors need to be at a "name on a building" level before that is considered.

There are other more obvious reasons why the Stanford student body contains a higher-than-random number of children of alumni.

[81alum]

When I was admitted in the 1970s, Stanford bragged that it was the only elite that did NOT give preferences to legacies and was also need-blind in admissions.  I was very proud to come to a campus that I thought was truly merit based.  But at some point in later years it switched--or admitted that it was never truly free of legacy admissions after all.  I have never heard the story about the switch.  In any case, my kids wanted nothing to do with Stanford, so it was not an issue in our double-legacy family.

[81alum]

When I was admitted in the 1970s, Stanford bragged that it was the only elite that did NOT give preferences to legacies and was also need-blind in admissions.  I was very proud to come to a campus that I thought was truly merit based.  But at some point in later years it switched--or admitted that it was never truly free of legacy admissions after all.  I have never heard the story about the switch.  In any case, my kids wanted nothing to do with Stanford, so it was not an issue in our double-legacy family.

[jacket3ree]

Of course Stanford gives legacy preference, on a sliding scale based on legacy donation. I know two stone-cold cases personally. One from the mid 80s and one from the 2010s.  If your name is on buildings or athletic fields and you are related to the people who paid for those named buildings or fields, you're in.  One was denied until a threatened donation cutoff call was made. The other was never going to be denied in a million years even had that person been a functional illiterate. Both made it through school just fine, but without those names, admission was as Dr. King Shultz would say, "a dubious proposition at best" on their own merit.

Yeah, two cases decades apart doesn't prove anything, except that it probably does.

[jacket3ree]

Of course Stanford gives legacy preference, on a sliding scale based on legacy donation. I know two stone-cold cases personally. One from the mid 80s and one from the 2010s.  If your name is on buildings or athletic fields and you are related to the people who paid for those named buildings or fields, you're in.  One was denied until a threatened donation cutoff call was made. The other was never going to be denied in a million years even had that person been a functional illiterate. Both made it through school just fine, but without those names, admission was as Dr. King Shultz would say, "a dubious proposition at best" on their own merit.

Yeah, two cases decades apart doesn't prove anything, except that it probably does.

[ca245]

When I was admitted in the 1970s, Stanford bragged that it was the only elite that did NOT give preferences to legacies and was also need-blind in admissions.  I was very proud to come to a campus that I thought was truly merit based.  But at some point in later years it switched--or admitted that it was never truly free of legacy admissions after all.  I have never heard the story about the switch.  In any case, my kids wanted nothing to do with Stanford, so it was not an issue in our double-legacy family.

When my daughter applied in 1999, I recall that the application form asked whether any relatives had gone to Stanford. If not for legacy admissions, what would be the purpose of the question?

[ca245]

When I was admitted in the 1970s, Stanford bragged that it was the only elite that did NOT give preferences to legacies and was also need-blind in admissions.  I was very proud to come to a campus that I thought was truly merit based.  But at some point in later years it switched--or admitted that it was never truly free of legacy admissions after all.  I have never heard the story about the switch.  In any case, my kids wanted nothing to do with Stanford, so it was not an issue in our double-legacy family.

When my daughter applied in 1999, I recall that the application form asked whether any relatives had gone to Stanford. If not for legacy admissions, what would be the purpose of the question?

[norcard10]

When I was admitted in the 1970s, Stanford bragged that it was the only elite that did NOT give preferences to legacies and was also need-blind in admissions.  I was very proud to come to a campus that I thought was truly merit based.  But at some point in later years it switched--or admitted that it was never truly free of legacy admissions after all.  I have never heard the story about the switch.  In any case, my kids wanted nothing to do with Stanford, so it was not an issue in our double-legacy family.

When my daughter applied in 1999, I recall that the application form asked whether any relatives had gone to Stanford. If not for legacy admissions, what would be the purpose of the question?

Reporting and legacy admissions.

[norcard10]

When I was admitted in the 1970s, Stanford bragged that it was the only elite that did NOT give preferences to legacies and was also need-blind in admissions.  I was very proud to come to a campus that I thought was truly merit based.  But at some point in later years it switched--or admitted that it was never truly free of legacy admissions after all.  I have never heard the story about the switch.  In any case, my kids wanted nothing to do with Stanford, so it was not an issue in our double-legacy family.

When my daughter applied in 1999, I recall that the application form asked whether any relatives had gone to Stanford. If not for legacy admissions, what would be the purpose of the question?

Reporting and legacy admissions.

[81alum]

When I was admitted in the 1970s, Stanford bragged that it was the only elite that did NOT give preferences to legacies and was also need-blind in admissions.  I was very proud to come to a campus that I thought was truly merit based.  But at some point in later years it switched--or admitted that it was never truly free of legacy admissions after all.  I have never heard the story about the switch.  In any case, my kids wanted nothing to do with Stanford, so it was not an issue in our double-legacy family.

When my daughter applied in 1999, I recall that the application form asked whether any relatives had gone to Stanford. If not for legacy admissions, what would be the purpose of the question?

Reporting and legacy admissions.

Yes, when I came back to teach at Stanford in 1988 I heard then that legacy admissions was a thing, and I was surprised and disappointed.  So if my fuzzy information and memory are to be trusted, legacy admissions must have either been implemented or revealed in the mid 1980s, right about the time that Fred Hargadon left to go to Princeton.

Keep in mind that not all legacy admissions are the same.  There is a difference between a system which populates its entering class with 50% legacies vs 20% legacies vs 5% legacies.  Some legacy programs give preferences just to undergraduate alums and not to graduate alums, and the significance of the advantage can vary depending on how important legacies are to the institution.  And it is pretty well known that legacy preferences were given (at most institutions) just to children of alums who had been making donations.  Most legacy programs don't give preferences to the children of poor alums.   

I don't know how significant Stanford's advantage was, nor the dates it was in effect.  If legacy admissions vanish, hoorah.

[81alum]

When I was admitted in the 1970s, Stanford bragged that it was the only elite that did NOT give preferences to legacies and was also need-blind in admissions.  I was very proud to come to a campus that I thought was truly merit based.  But at some point in later years it switched--or admitted that it was never truly free of legacy admissions after all.  I have never heard the story about the switch.  In any case, my kids wanted nothing to do with Stanford, so it was not an issue in our double-legacy family.

When my daughter applied in 1999, I recall that the application form asked whether any relatives had gone to Stanford. If not for legacy admissions, what would be the purpose of the question?

Reporting and legacy admissions.

Yes, when I came back to teach at Stanford in 1988 I heard then that legacy admissions was a thing, and I was surprised and disappointed.  So if my fuzzy information and memory are to be trusted, legacy admissions must have either been implemented or revealed in the mid 1980s, right about the time that Fred Hargadon left to go to Princeton.

Keep in mind that not all legacy admissions are the same.  There is a difference between a system which populates its entering class with 50% legacies vs 20% legacies vs 5% legacies.  Some legacy programs give preferences just to undergraduate alums and not to graduate alums, and the significance of the advantage can vary depending on how important legacies are to the institution.  And it is pretty well known that legacy preferences were given (at most institutions) just to children of alums who had been making donations.  Most legacy programs don't give preferences to the children of poor alums.   

I don't know how significant Stanford's advantage was, nor the dates it was in effect.  If legacy admissions vanish, hoorah.

[jacket3ree]

It seems that the legacy advantage at Stanford is significant. Stanford self-reports that legacies or children of benefactors make up 16 to 17 percent of the incoming class. I've seen reports that conflate that as an acceptance rate for legacies, but I'm not sure that is precise mathematics. However, neither random selection nor self-selection as to who applies would explain how 17% of an incoming class is made up of legacies and donor favors with an overall acceptance rate is 4%. So, the legacy advantage is close to 4x more or less. Stanford has the numbers to calculate the legacy admission advantage, but I don't know if those are public. If Stanford were serious about not giving legacy advantage, or more likely big donor advantage, they would not ask for that information on applications, and disqualify anyone who slips it into an essay. An interfering call from Big Donor would mean automatic rejection. That will never happen.  Also, as the son of a legacy elsewhere - and I know that was a factor; the single page front and back application was blatantly obvious - what's the big problem as long as the legacies are at least as qualified and accomplished as other applicants?  Overall the acceptance rate is still only 4%.  They deny almost everyone who applies, legacy or not.

Hot off the press

[jacket3ree]

It seems that the legacy advantage at Stanford is significant. Stanford self-reports that legacies or children of benefactors make up 16 to 17 percent of the incoming class. I've seen reports that conflate that as an acceptance rate for legacies, but I'm not sure that is precise mathematics. However, neither random selection nor self-selection as to who applies would explain how 17% of an incoming class is made up of legacies and donor favors with an overall acceptance rate is 4%. So, the legacy advantage is close to 4x more or less. Stanford has the numbers to calculate the legacy admission advantage, but I don't know if those are public. If Stanford were serious about not giving legacy advantage, or more likely big donor advantage, they would not ask for that information on applications, and disqualify anyone who slips it into an essay. An interfering call from Big Donor would mean automatic rejection. That will never happen.  Also, as the son of a legacy elsewhere - and I know that was a factor; the single page front and back application was blatantly obvious - what's the big problem as long as the legacies are at least as qualified and accomplished as other applicants?  Overall the acceptance rate is still only 4%.  They deny almost everyone who applies, legacy or not.

Hot off the press

[dabigv13]

The article linked above by jacketree indicates the class admitted in 2019 had the following breakdown-

In the undergraduate Class of 2023, which was admitted for Fall 2019 entrance, 16.2% of the enrolling class (302 admitted students and 276 matriculating students) were the children of Stanford graduates. For some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of philanthropy. An additional 1.5% of the enrolling class (34 admitted students and 26 matriculating students) had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of philanthropy. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 302 students in the enrolling class, representing 17.8% of our 1,701 entering students.

And from the LA Times article, for the class admitted three years later in 2022, which I quoted from earlier in the thread

Stanford offered admission to 287 students, or 13.8% of the class — with 92% related to alumni and 8% with ties only to donors.

A pretty significant diminishment in only three years, from 302 admitted legacies to 264. Could be year to year variability.

But I disagree with jacketree that the numbers we know indicate a big legacy effect. It's probable that legacies as a group versus non-legacies would have better academic credentials. Legacies also probably have a much higher yield rate than non-legacies. Those factors combined would be expected to result in a higher percentage of the class being legacies as compared to random selection even if there was no advantage given for legacy status or even a slight penalty.

We probably will not ever see the numbers needed to actually calculate what advantage legacy gives in Stanford's "holistic" approach. You'd want to see the average test scores and grades of legacy admits versus non-legacy admits. I bet they're not too dissimilar. Seeing Stanford admit rates for kids of Ivy+ parent alums versus Stanford legacies would be interesting as well.

[dabigv13]

The article linked above by jacketree indicates the class admitted in 2019 had the following breakdown-

In the undergraduate Class of 2023, which was admitted for Fall 2019 entrance, 16.2% of the enrolling class (302 admitted students and 276 matriculating students) were the children of Stanford graduates. For some of these students, their admission files also noted a history of philanthropy. An additional 1.5% of the enrolling class (34 admitted students and 26 matriculating students) had no legacy affiliation with Stanford, but their admission files noted a history of philanthropy. Together, those with either of these two characteristics totaled 302 students in the enrolling class, representing 17.8% of our 1,701 entering students.

And from the LA Times article, for the class admitted three years later in 2022, which I quoted from earlier in the thread

Stanford offered admission to 287 students, or 13.8% of the class — with 92% related to alumni and 8% with ties only to donors.

A pretty significant diminishment in only three years, from 302 admitted legacies to 264. Could be year to year variability.

But I disagree with jacketree that the numbers we know indicate a big legacy effect. It's probable that legacies as a group versus non-legacies would have better academic credentials. Legacies also probably have a much higher yield rate than non-legacies. Those factors combined would be expected to result in a higher percentage of the class being legacies as compared to random selection even if there was no advantage given for legacy status or even a slight penalty.

We probably will not ever see the numbers needed to actually calculate what advantage legacy gives in Stanford's "holistic" approach. You'd want to see the average test scores and grades of legacy admits versus non-legacy admits. I bet they're not too dissimilar. Seeing Stanford admit rates for kids of Ivy+ parent alums versus Stanford legacies would be interesting as well.

[TrumpCard]

The data is too murky to be useful. 

If you had data on Ivy+, that would not control for the donations and other valuable commitments made by the alumni parents. Presumably those Ivy+ alumni were not making donations and volunteering for Stanford for years and years. 

The only way to get a true picture of the importance of legacy/donor status in admissions is to get a candid disclosure from the university’s leadership. 

I always assumed that bare alumni status, without a big donation history, meant zilch, but that’s mostly because there’s no use in getting my hopes up and I’m not going to re-order my philanthropic priorities based on speculation that doing so might benefit me or my kids.

[TrumpCard]

The data is too murky to be useful. 

If you had data on Ivy+, that would not control for the donations and other valuable commitments made by the alumni parents. Presumably those Ivy+ alumni were not making donations and volunteering for Stanford for years and years. 

The only way to get a true picture of the importance of legacy/donor status in admissions is to get a candid disclosure from the university’s leadership. 

I always assumed that bare alumni status, without a big donation history, meant zilch, but that’s mostly because there’s no use in getting my hopes up and I’m not going to re-order my philanthropic priorities based on speculation that doing so might benefit me or my kids.

[Mick]

New York Times says yes...alumni legacies are admitted in higher numbers, but it's because they're more qualified than other applicants, based upon a study that included all of the Ivies, Stanford, Chicago, MIT and Duke:

How Big Is the Legacy Boost at Elite Colleges?

The UC and CSU systems say they don't favor legacies in any way, same with CalTech and Cal Poly Pomona. Notably, none ask about legacy status on their college applications. UC hasn't considered legacy status since the 1990s:

California law sheds light on how private colleges handle applications from alumni children

[Mick]

New York Times says yes...alumni legacies are admitted in higher numbers, but it's because they're more qualified than other applicants, based upon a study that included all of the Ivies, Stanford, Chicago, MIT and Duke:

How Big Is the Legacy Boost at Elite Colleges?

The UC and CSU systems say they don't favor legacies in any way, same with CalTech and Cal Poly Pomona. Notably, none ask about legacy status on their college applications. UC hasn't considered legacy status since the 1990s:

California law sheds light on how private colleges handle applications from alumni children