[Jamesy]

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...0col1-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.

[Jamesy]

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...0col1-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.