As far as I can tell, Stanford's claim to have need-blind admissions in the 70s was less than candid. This is based on my experience at the law school but I would be surprised if things were different in other schools.
When admitting the class of '83, the law school's admissions committee was headed by a professor who set out to actually implement the nice things the school was saying about diversity of background and need-blind admissions. The result was a class that broke the bank. The next year, things went back to normal with a new guy in charge, resulting in far lower financial aid needs in subsequent years. It's hard to tell how much of the difference was actually being need-blind and how much was due to other admissions criteria that amount to proxies for wealth. Either way, there seems to be a strong bias against those without means.
When admitting the class of '83, the law school's admissions committee was headed by a professor who set out to actually implement the nice things the school was saying about diversity of background and need-blind admissions. The result was a class that broke the bank. The next year, things went back to normal with a new guy in charge, resulting in far lower financial aid needs in subsequent years. It's hard to tell how much of the difference was actually being need-blind and how much was due to other admissions criteria that amount to proxies for wealth. Either way, there seems to be a strong bias against those without means.