[BostonCard]

I feel like people keep making the claim that legacy preferences are necessary to ensure alumni giving, but there's never any empirical evidence to support this, and there seems to be at least some, quoted above, to refute it.

My view has always been that the university wants, and benefits from, a certain amount of continuity among generations; a freshman class with no Stanford alumni parents would, I think, be less likely to carry on Stanford specific traditions, etc. And if no alumni children went to Stanford, I suspect fewer alums would go for Parents Day, alumni weekends, etc. Some of my favorite "friends' parents" experiences from Stanford were when my legacy friends' parents would visit campus, either for Parents Weekend, or their our alumni reunion, or just to see their kids, and share their stories of "when I was here." I do think some amount of cultural and historical continuity is important, so giving some consideration for it in the admissions process isn't, I think, categorically bad. And I'm certain when an alum's competitive applicant child is denied admission, it can lead to sour feelings and a disinclination to be as involved as an alum.

But especially when that leads to differential outcomes in terms of privilege, race, and class, then it needs to be handled with care. However, I have never been convinced "fundraising" is an especially good, let alone dispositive, reason for legacy preferences, and I have yet to see concrete evidence that it's necessary to maintaining "development."

I vehemently disagree with legacy admissions (even though my kids would obviously benefit), regardless of its effect on development.  Schools, including Stanford, should get rid of it because it would be the right thing to do, and take the hit (if any) on fundraising.

BC

[BostonCard]

I feel like people keep making the claim that legacy preferences are necessary to ensure alumni giving, but there's never any empirical evidence to support this, and there seems to be at least some, quoted above, to refute it.

My view has always been that the university wants, and benefits from, a certain amount of continuity among generations; a freshman class with no Stanford alumni parents would, I think, be less likely to carry on Stanford specific traditions, etc. And if no alumni children went to Stanford, I suspect fewer alums would go for Parents Day, alumni weekends, etc. Some of my favorite "friends' parents" experiences from Stanford were when my legacy friends' parents would visit campus, either for Parents Weekend, or their our alumni reunion, or just to see their kids, and share their stories of "when I was here." I do think some amount of cultural and historical continuity is important, so giving some consideration for it in the admissions process isn't, I think, categorically bad. And I'm certain when an alum's competitive applicant child is denied admission, it can lead to sour feelings and a disinclination to be as involved as an alum.

But especially when that leads to differential outcomes in terms of privilege, race, and class, then it needs to be handled with care. However, I have never been convinced "fundraising" is an especially good, let alone dispositive, reason for legacy preferences, and I have yet to see concrete evidence that it's necessary to maintaining "development."

I vehemently disagree with legacy admissions (even though my kids would obviously benefit), regardless of its effect on development.  Schools, including Stanford, should get rid of it because it would be the right thing to do, and take the hit (if any) on fundraising.

BC