[Goose]

My main concern is that axing these "country club" sports seems more to be about reducing the perception of Stanford as a place for privileged students, and I am skeptical that they would be significantly replaced by anything other than other strivers from privileged backgrounds, just ones who don't happen to play high level sports.

Trying to reduce the perception that Stanford is a place for privileged students is a fools errand. First of all, it is to a large degree exactly that. One can argue about the exact percentages of students who come from the top of the economic ladder, but it is always going to be much higher than at say Cal State Chico. It is a laudable goal for Stanford University to identify and admit qualified students that are not from that group, but the idea that they are ever going to completely overcome the effects of "rich" people getting a better preparatory education is absurd. Second of all, Stanford WANTS to be perceived as an "elite" university. You don't do that by admitting too many students who are not in the "top" of their classes, and lots of those students are and will always be "better off" than most. Third, Stanford can't give up on "legacy" admissions and donor admissions because they want the heritage loyalty and money that comes with such admissions.
Varsity Blues shows that the coaches were willing to give up spots for "real" athletes for money. Given the few spots these sports actually have such malfeasance should have immediately tanked the sports. Nobody noticed that happening. Substituting one unqualified rich athlete for a qualified rich athlete made no difference. It is improbable that suddenly all these newly "freed up" slots will go to "disadvantaged" students. They will simply reflect the admissions profile of the University, as they do already,

[Goose]

My main concern is that axing these "country club" sports seems more to be about reducing the perception of Stanford as a place for privileged students, and I am skeptical that they would be significantly replaced by anything other than other strivers from privileged backgrounds, just ones who don't happen to play high level sports.

Trying to reduce the perception that Stanford is a place for privileged students is a fools errand. First of all, it is to a large degree exactly that. One can argue about the exact percentages of students who come from the top of the economic ladder, but it is always going to be much higher than at say Cal State Chico. It is a laudable goal for Stanford University to identify and admit qualified students that are not from that group, but the idea that they are ever going to completely overcome the effects of "rich" people getting a better preparatory education is absurd. Second of all, Stanford WANTS to be perceived as an "elite" university. You don't do that by admitting too many students who are not in the "top" of their classes, and lots of those students are and will always be "better off" than most. Third, Stanford can't give up on "legacy" admissions and donor admissions because they want the heritage loyalty and money that comes with such admissions.
Varsity Blues shows that the coaches were willing to give up spots for "real" athletes for money. Given the few spots these sports actually have such malfeasance should have immediately tanked the sports. Nobody noticed that happening. Substituting one unqualified rich athlete for a qualified rich athlete made no difference. It is improbable that suddenly all these newly "freed up" slots will go to "disadvantaged" students. They will simply reflect the admissions profile of the University, as they do already,