The CardBoard
Outside Topic Stanford legacy admits - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The CARDboard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Stanford legacy admits (/showthread.php?tid=19967)



Stanford legacy admits - 82lsju - 06-28-2020

Quote:"16.2% of students in the Class of 2023 are children of Stanford graduates, according to a report submitted to the California state legislature on Friday. An additional 1.5% were not legacy students but came from a family with a history of philanthropy, the report noted.

The combined percentage is nearly equal to the 18.5% of students in the Class of 2023 who are first-generation college students"

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/06/26/nearly-18-of-class-of-2023-are-legacy-students-or-relatives-of-donors-report-reveals/


the actual report is here

https://wp.stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Stanford-Admissions-Report-to-Legislature-6.26.2020.pdf

which says in part

Quote:"At Stanford, “legacy” applicants are defined as the children of Stanford graduates at either the undergraduate or graduate level. With respect to philanthropy, Stanford does not document in admission files the donor status of all applicants’ families. However, some applicants’ files may contain a notation about their family’s giving. In the large majority of these cases, the parents of the applicants are alsograduates of Stanford. Philanthropy plays a significant role in supporting the opportunities available to all students at Stanford, including the ability to attend the university through our program of need-based financial aid.

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 on the legacy admit rate (from 2013)

Quote:"One of Stanford's biggest priorities, as it is at most universities, is the bond of legacy. The percentage of alumni children admitted to Stanford is roughly three times the overall percentage of acceptance: somewhere in the mid to high teens."

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/what-it-takes


lex24 - lex24 - 06-28-2020

I have never agreed that legacies should gain advantage.  Affirmative action for the already fortunate.


RE: lex24 - 82lsju - 06-28-2020

(06-28-2020, 10:35 AM)lex24 Wrote:  I have never agreed that legacies should gain advantage.  Affirmative action for the already fortunate.

generally agree, hard to judge how much an advantage comes having a parent(s) who graduated from college and presumably value education so perhaps emphasize it more with their kids

will be interesting to see what Cal, UCLA, USC, and others report


RE: Stanford legacy admits - BobK - 06-28-2020

Two years ago usc at 19%.


RE: lex24 - Farm93 - 06-28-2020

(06-28-2020, 10:54 AM)82lsju Wrote:  
(06-28-2020, 10:35 AM)lex24 Wrote:  I have never agreed that legacies should gain advantage.  Affirmative action for the already fortunate.

generally agree, hard to judge how much an advantage comes having a parent(s) who graduated from college and presumably value education so perhaps emphasize it more with their kids

will be interesting to see what Cal, UCLA, USC, and others report
Generally agree at the level of schools noted here.

Families with legacies may be more inclined to send donations to the school.   For schools in dire need of funding that may be important, but I am not thinking that applies for Stanford or the CA based Pac-12 schools.

There are schools that struggle to keep retention and graduation rates at good levels.   There are a number of schools that suffer because many on campus are trying to transfer or are complaining they should be at more selective schools.  Those types tend to be rather toxic to the campus culture for many reasons.   Legacy students would be less likely to see the college in that way and would be more likely to defend the school and culture.  That's probably helpful for the campus culture, retention and grad rates in places with retention concerns.

I should note even if a school did not give admission bonus points the legacy admit rates for any school would likely be higher for legacy applicants.   The potential legacy student would likely know the types of things they should include in their application materials.   The parents potentially would have placed their children in activities that may be seen as important to the university.   And both the potential student and the parents would take the application process seriously.  

In the last few years it has become common for students to apply to 20-30+ schools.   Now students will note in their reaction videos that they have not been to a campus or are not even sure where a school is located.  Generally many seem to apply to a lot of schools just because it was just another $50-$100.

Not a big fan of highly selective schools offering a structured scoring advantage in their process, but would caution against concluding the delta between legacy and non-legacy admit rates is explained completely by a structured admission process benefit.


RE: Stanford legacy admits - cctop - 06-28-2020

A friend in the admissions office told me that Stanford doesn't give extra points for legacies but that legacy status can be used as a tie-breaker.  

I suppose it's a distinction without a difference, because Stanford could likely fill its freshman class several times over with qualified applicants.

It's interesting to have actual numbers for applicants for whom donor status was presumably a deciding factor in their admission.  I like that the law requires universities to disclose that.


RE: Stanford legacy admits - Spiny_Norman - 06-28-2020

According to the article that 82lsju posted above from Stanford Magazine from 2013, legacy applicants got one big advantage - review by 2 admission evaluators. Nearly everyone else was only seen by one evaluator. If you were a legacy, something was working in your favor. They were 3 times as likely to be admitted as of 2013.


RE: Stanford legacy admits - 82lsju - 06-28-2020

(06-28-2020, 08:33 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:  According to the article that 82lsju posted above from Stanford Magazine from 2013, legacy applicants got one big advantage - review by 2 admission evaluators. Nearly everyone else was only seen by one evaluator. If you were a legacy, something was working in your favor. They were 3 times as likely to be admitted as of 2013.

in my case better to have reviews by different evaluators (if that was the process way back when) in two years I applied as the first one said no, but a year later the next one said yes (or maybe the first one saw the error in their ways)........


RE: Stanford legacy admits - CowboyIndian - 06-28-2020

(06-28-2020, 09:01 PM)82lsju Wrote:  ... but a year later the next one said yes (or maybe the first one saw the error in their ways)........

In my case, they didn't see the error of their ways until after I arrived on campus.


RE: Stanford legacy admits - akiddoc - 06-29-2020

(06-28-2020, 08:33 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:  According to the article that 82lsju posted above from Stanford Magazine from 2013, legacy applicants got one big advantage - review by 2 admission evaluators. Nearly everyone else was only seen by one evaluator. If you were a legacy, something was working in your favor. They were 3 times as likely to be admitted as of 2013.

I don't think it's much of an advantage to get two reads. The advantage isn't even being a legacy. The advantage comes when your parents give a lot of money to Stanford or have a long history of serving on Stanford committees. There is a point system for this. 

I had a long email exchange with Howard Wolf, the VP of Alumni Affairs last year. I was unhappy that Stanford got caught up in the payment for admission scandal. I feel that monetary contributions should have no influence in admissions. The university's position is that it should. 


His last email:

As a Stanford alumnus myself, I too would be embarrassed if “…our alma mater is in the business of selling admission to anyone.” But, as I tried to explain below, this is not the case.

 
Stanford takes many things into consideration in the admission process, as the review is holistic in nature. On the alumni/legacy front, we take giving into consideration much like we take alumni participation in Stanford events or volunteerism at Stanford into consideration. Giving, in other words, is but one of many things that is considered.
 
What I think I hear you saying below is that you think that an applicant’s Stanford legacy status should not be taken into consideration in the Stanford admissions process. Although I understand why you may wish this to be the case, you and I would disagree on this point. If one truly joins the Stanford family when matriculating as a student at Stanford, then I think it entirely appropriate that the children of such Stanford family members should be given a small degree of special consideration in the undergraduate admission process. 
 
Thanks, again, for engaging in this discussion. Although I fully understand that you may not agree with me or how Stanford handles such admissions practices, I very much appreciate you opining and sharing your views.
 


He completely could not understand that contributing money to the university was a way of buying admission for one's children - even though he admitted that the university is doing it. Or he understands it and wants to use semantics to hide it.


RE: Stanford legacy admits - StanfordMatt - 06-29-2020

As an alum with a parent who is also an alum, I recognize that my chances of admission were materially bolstered by my dad’s choice of school.

My senior year at Stanford, I took a seminar on higher education and one of the classes was taught by a guest lecturer from the admissions department. That person echoed cctop’s point that legacy status is viewed more as a tie-breaker than anything else. I also heard in that class (off the record and over 15 years old at this point) that the size of a donation had to be in the six figures at minimum for the applicant’s file to even receive the notation recognizing the philanthropy. My dad was dismayed to learn that his $5 annual contribution did not further tip the scales in my favor.


RE: Stanford legacy admits - lex24 - 06-29-2020

(06-29-2020, 12:14 AM)akiddoc Wrote:  
(06-28-2020, 08:33 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:  According to the article that 82lsju posted above from Stanford Magazine from 2013, legacy applicants got one big advantage - review by 2 admission evaluators. Nearly everyone else was only seen by one evaluator. If you were a legacy, something was working in your favor. They were 3 times as likely to be admitted as of 2013.

I don't think it's much of an advantage to get two reads. The advantage isn't even being a legacy. The advantage comes when your parents give a lot of money to Stanford or have a long history of serving on Stanford committees. There is a point system for this. 

I had a long email exchange with Howard Wolf, the VP of Alumni Affairs last year. I was unhappy that Stanford got caught up in the payment for admission scandal. I feel that monetary contributions should have no influence in admissions. The university's position is that it should. 


His last email:

As a Stanford alumnus myself, I too would be embarrassed if “…our alma mater is in the business of selling admission to anyone.” But, as I tried to explain below, this is not the case.

 
Stanford takes many things into consideration in the admission process, as the review is holistic in nature. On the alumni/legacy front, we take giving into consideration much like we take alumni participation in Stanford events or volunteerism at Stanford into consideration. Giving, in other words, is but one of many things that is considered.
 
What I think I hear you saying below is that you think that an applicant’s Stanford legacy status should not be taken into consideration in the Stanford admissions process. Although I understand why you may wish this to be the case, you and I would disagree on this point. If one truly joins the Stanford family when matriculating as a student at Stanford, then I think it entirely appropriate that the children of such Stanford family members should be given a small degree of special consideration in the undergraduate admission process. 
 
Thanks, again, for engaging in this discussion. Although I fully understand that you may not agree with me or how Stanford handles such admissions practices, I very much appreciate you opining and sharing your views.
 


He completely could not understand that contributing money to the university was a way of buying admission for one's children - even though he admitted that the university is doing it. Or he understands it and wants to use semantics to hide it.

Neither contributions nor legacy should matter.  And sorry, I know this will go over like a lead balloon on this board, but the  “Stanford family” rationale he gives is BS.  It’s a great University.   Which is all the more reason to not give preference to the kids of those that were fortunate (and talented) enough to be Stanford grads. Their kids have already reaped that benefit  So to me it’s Affirmative Action for “lucky sperm club” members. I just dont believe it should factor into the process.


RE: Stanford legacy admits - 81alum - 06-29-2020

When Fred Hargadon admitted me in 1977, Stanford bragged that it--almost alone among the elites--paid no attention to legacies, and also that it conducted need-blind admissions.  These were the two pillars of Stanford's strategy to distinguish itself as the elite university that operated its admissions much more strictly on merit rather than on the old-boys network which typified so many Ivies.   I was very proud to attend such a university.  But I have watched as those progressive measures have eroded over the years, and it saddens me.