[Mudhead]

The argument is that legacy status is an immutable characteristic.  There is nothing that an individual can do to change their legacy status, and it says nothing about the applicant.  While you can quibble a lot about the relevance of athletic achievement is to a university, it at least is an individual's own accomplishment, and generally a sign of drive, leadership, etc.  I'm now of the opinion that we should de-emphasize the role of athletics, but I don't think that athletic achievement ought to be completely irrelevant to university admission (as are other extracurriculars, student government, volunteering, musical accomplishment, etc.). There is no formula for admitting people to Stanford (GPA x 400 + SAT or whatever the old Durrett formula was) nor do I think we want one.



As for the State's interest, it should be obvious for state schools, but even private schools get federal and state (eg https://www.cirm.ca.gov/active-awards-portfolio/) money, and all of them are tax exempt, presumably because they advance the state's interest in educating its citizens

BC

You make many good points.  Especially the thought that once an institution like Stanford   accepts a lot of government money, it also accepts Federal regulation. some of it, like Title IX is something we applaud, even thought the elimination of any vestige of due process that comes with it makes us all a tad queasy. Some of it, like massive defense research grants worries us.  Thanks to State actors in Sacramento we see the unfortunate but logical extension of this thinking … government control of the admissions process at a private institution.

Why not turn over faculty selection and curricula determination over to them as well? We could save a lot of money by gettting rid of the Presidents office and the faculty .  All we really need is a few GS 15’s and an Assistant Sec of .education to run this school .

[Mudhead]

The argument is that legacy status is an immutable characteristic.  There is nothing that an individual can do to change their legacy status, and it says nothing about the applicant.  While you can quibble a lot about the relevance of athletic achievement is to a university, it at least is an individual's own accomplishment, and generally a sign of drive, leadership, etc.  I'm now of the opinion that we should de-emphasize the role of athletics, but I don't think that athletic achievement ought to be completely irrelevant to university admission (as are other extracurriculars, student government, volunteering, musical accomplishment, etc.). There is no formula for admitting people to Stanford (GPA x 400 + SAT or whatever the old Durrett formula was) nor do I think we want one.



As for the State's interest, it should be obvious for state schools, but even private schools get federal and state (eg https://www.cirm.ca.gov/active-awards-portfolio/) money, and all of them are tax exempt, presumably because they advance the state's interest in educating its citizens

BC

You make many good points.  Especially the thought that once an institution like Stanford   accepts a lot of government money, it also accepts Federal regulation. some of it, like Title IX is something we applaud, even thought the elimination of any vestige of due process that comes with it makes us all a tad queasy. Some of it, like massive defense research grants worries us.  Thanks to State actors in Sacramento we see the unfortunate but logical extension of this thinking … government control of the admissions process at a private institution.

Why not turn over faculty selection and curricula determination over to them as well? We could save a lot of money by gettting rid of the Presidents office and the faculty .  All we really need is a few GS 15’s and an Assistant Sec of .education to run this school .