[chrisk]

In the academic world I inhabit, Stanford is known for giving less preference to children of alums than most private schools - though I have never seen anything approaching a reliable set of numbers on that. While completely unreliable and annecdotal, I know of several individual cases of children of alums who would seem to have been close calls who did not get admitted to Stanford. That would appear to be consistent with the common knowledge I stated above - but of course a handful of cases really proves nothing.

info on number of legacy admits but no info on the admit rate.

At Stanford University, 302 students newly admitted in the fall of 2019, or 17.8% of the first-year class, were children of Stanford graduates or financial donors. Last fall there were 266 of those students, or 14.9% of the class.

The University of Southern California reported 1,889 new students related to alumni or donors in the fall of 2019, 16% of all newly admitted students. There were 1,740 such students in the fall of 2022, 14% of the total.

The percentages were higher at Santa Clara: 343 students, or 24.7% of all new enrollees, in 2019-20, and 294, or 17.7% of the total, in 2022-23.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/art...he%20class.

---

A friend in the admissions office told me that donations to the school need to be "name on a building" level before they start to give it consideration.

Also they told me that they consider legacy status only as a tiebreaker when all else is equal, and it's rare that they're deciding between two candidates head-to-head that way.

this is the same info I was told at my 25th reunion in 2007 by a friend who worked at Stanford.

I have two questions.  First, how big a deal are legacy admits?  Second and more important, what is the solution if you think Legacy admits gain too much preference from admissions.
You can eliminate SAT or ACT scores from consideration
You can eliminate Race from consideration
You can eliminate the Essay from consideration
You can eliminate the number of honors courses taken and their grades. 
You can boil it down so nothing but the GPA scores.  If that happens, I wager legacy and scion of wealthy parents will fare better.
Personally I am all for trying to balance the ledger.  But I don't see how you do it fairly.  Whatever system you choose is almost certain to have negative results for certain classes.  Then you can raise the National Security Issue.  Do you want to educate the offspring of individuals whose country is a potential strategic enemy?
If someone has an answer I would love to see it.

International students are not included in the racial composition of enrolless. Also, in the past, the need-blind standard has not been applied to international applicants. They may be allocating more financial to international undergraduates but I don't think they are anywhere near need-blind.

[chrisk]

In the academic world I inhabit, Stanford is known for giving less preference to children of alums than most private schools - though I have never seen anything approaching a reliable set of numbers on that. While completely unreliable and annecdotal, I know of several individual cases of children of alums who would seem to have been close calls who did not get admitted to Stanford. That would appear to be consistent with the common knowledge I stated above - but of course a handful of cases really proves nothing.

info on number of legacy admits but no info on the admit rate.

At Stanford University, 302 students newly admitted in the fall of 2019, or 17.8% of the first-year class, were children of Stanford graduates or financial donors. Last fall there were 266 of those students, or 14.9% of the class.

The University of Southern California reported 1,889 new students related to alumni or donors in the fall of 2019, 16% of all newly admitted students. There were 1,740 such students in the fall of 2022, 14% of the total.

The percentages were higher at Santa Clara: 343 students, or 24.7% of all new enrollees, in 2019-20, and 294, or 17.7% of the total, in 2022-23.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/art...he%20class.

---

A friend in the admissions office told me that donations to the school need to be "name on a building" level before they start to give it consideration.

Also they told me that they consider legacy status only as a tiebreaker when all else is equal, and it's rare that they're deciding between two candidates head-to-head that way.

this is the same info I was told at my 25th reunion in 2007 by a friend who worked at Stanford.

I have two questions.  First, how big a deal are legacy admits?  Second and more important, what is the solution if you think Legacy admits gain too much preference from admissions.
You can eliminate SAT or ACT scores from consideration
You can eliminate Race from consideration
You can eliminate the Essay from consideration
You can eliminate the number of honors courses taken and their grades. 
You can boil it down so nothing but the GPA scores.  If that happens, I wager legacy and scion of wealthy parents will fare better.
Personally I am all for trying to balance the ledger.  But I don't see how you do it fairly.  Whatever system you choose is almost certain to have negative results for certain classes.  Then you can raise the National Security Issue.  Do you want to educate the offspring of individuals whose country is a potential strategic enemy?
If someone has an answer I would love to see it.

International students are not included in the racial composition of enrolless. Also, in the past, the need-blind standard has not been applied to international applicants. They may be allocating more financial to international undergraduates but I don't think they are anywhere near need-blind.