[OCcardinal]

Does anyone else find it ironic and slightly concerning that just about the time minority graduates with children of admission age are becoming a significant % of the total, there is a push to do away with any credit for being a legacy?  Again, I don’t have enough data to even hint at a cause and effect .

I had this exact thought, but hadn't seen anyone raise it until now. I, like you, am frustrated by the lack of data on legacy admissions. I think it's impossible to reach any clear cut conclusions based on information that is publicly available.    

Stanford and other California colleges are required by law to report the % of enrolled students that are legacies. But the bare percentage of legacies doesn't tell us the really pertinent info, such as:

1) How many legacies applied, what was their actual admit rate, and what was their yield rate? 
2) What percentage of legacy admits were overtly given a legacy advantage in admission decisions?  Clearly someone like Christian McCaffrey wasn't admitted based on legacy status. I'm sure many non-athlete legacies are uniquely exceptional in their own way too.  Given their parents' background in higher education (and elite athletics or other activities that are generally attractive to top universities) legacy kids on the whole have tons of advantages.  Far more legacies get rejected than admitted, but the odds of one of Ed and Lisa's kids getting admitted surely was always going to be higher than for the general population, legacy or no.
3) What exactly is the profile of the applicants who were edged out of an admission spot due to that legacy preference (was it mostly private school kids or actually applicants from more disadvantaged backgrounds)?

I've seen people assume (or try to indirectly determine) answers to the above, but no direct verification. The colleges know the answers to those questions, but I've never seen them share it (either voluntarily or involuntarily).

[OCcardinal]

Does anyone else find it ironic and slightly concerning that just about the time minority graduates with children of admission age are becoming a significant % of the total, there is a push to do away with any credit for being a legacy?  Again, I don’t have enough data to even hint at a cause and effect .

I had this exact thought, but hadn't seen anyone raise it until now. I, like you, am frustrated by the lack of data on legacy admissions. I think it's impossible to reach any clear cut conclusions based on information that is publicly available.    

Stanford and other California colleges are required by law to report the % of enrolled students that are legacies. But the bare percentage of legacies doesn't tell us the really pertinent info, such as:

1) How many legacies applied, what was their actual admit rate, and what was their yield rate? 
2) What percentage of legacy admits were overtly given a legacy advantage in admission decisions?  Clearly someone like Christian McCaffrey wasn't admitted based on legacy status. I'm sure many non-athlete legacies are uniquely exceptional in their own way too.  Given their parents' background in higher education (and elite athletics or other activities that are generally attractive to top universities) legacy kids on the whole have tons of advantages.  Far more legacies get rejected than admitted, but the odds of one of Ed and Lisa's kids getting admitted surely was always going to be higher than for the general population, legacy or no.
3) What exactly is the profile of the applicants who were edged out of an admission spot due to that legacy preference (was it mostly private school kids or actually applicants from more disadvantaged backgrounds)?

I've seen people assume (or try to indirectly determine) answers to the above, but no direct verification. The colleges know the answers to those questions, but I've never seen them share it (either voluntarily or involuntarily).