This column originally appeared in the Monday, Aug. 12, print edition of the Daily Post.
BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
Stanford has revealed its priorities in a roundabout way.
You probably saw the headlines saying the university would be laying off 363 employees because of anticipated cuts in federal subsidies and an increase in the endowment tax.
So you’d think that Stanford has gone into austerity mode. Not quite.
Instead, Stanford has decided to thumb its nose at a new law intended to end legacy admissions and pay a penalty around $3 million, according to an article in Forbes. The Forbes article was written by contributor Michael T. Nietzel, former president of Missouri State University.
Applicants whose parents attended Stanford or made major donations to the university need not worry about getting admitted.
Law aimed at legacy admits
The new law, Assembly Bill 1780, was introduced by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco.
As his bill moved through the Legislature, it was watered down, Nietzel writes.
Originally, it would have prohibited universities from receiving funds through the Cal Grant financial aid program if they gave preferential admissions treatment to applicants with donor or alumni connections. That provision was later amended so that a school that continued legacy admissions would pay a fine equal to the amount of Cal Grants it received in the prior year.
14% of freshmen
The Los Angeles Times estimates that Stanford admitted 287 legacy students in 2022, equaling 13.8% of its new admits that year. The Times also said Stanford received $3.2 million in Cal Grant support that year, which suggests how expensive it will be for Stanford to continue admitting legacy students.
To make up for the loss of state aid, Stanford will be “replacing state-funded student financial aid with university funding, keeping our students’ financial support whole,” wrote Brad Howard, associate vice president of university communications, in an email to the Stanford Daily.
Donations
So while Stanford is making job cuts, it’s also willing to pay a fine for admitting legacy students, in order to keep donors and alumni happy. I think it’s safe to say that the donors and alumni who expect their kids to get into Stanford donate far more than $3 million a year.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.
Although I graduated from Stanford in the’70’s, I didn’t get in as a legacy. My great grandfather was in the class of 1894. Many other family members split between Stanford and Cal. I never listed them on my application.
One of my closest friends had three generations going to Stanford including being nationally ranked sports figure.
They used every advantage in their son’s application.
He was a 4.0+ gpa, perfect test scores and was “wait listed” before going to Notre Dame.
I’d never be admitted today.
My experience was that the school changed about the time that we were no longer the Indians. Prince Lightfoot, aka: Timm Williams, was crushed when outside agitator’s bullied the Trustees into the name change.
I’d venture to guess not many indigenous students have attended Stanford, so I may have a better idea for a mascot: instead of a so-called “Indian,” howz about a morbidly obese 19th century Robbery Barron with a dollar sign for a face?
Trump?
I get the impression, from the tone of the article, that Dave Price is a little irritated at legacy admissions. (Apologies if I’m wrong.) What people don’t seem to grasp is that Stanford University is a business. Every decision they make is financial. Of course legacy admissions are a calculation. If the state wanted to end legacy admissions they could have, but the business won out.
Laws represent public policy, and AB1780 is California’s policy — that schools shouldn’t give advantages to the kids of donors or alumni. That’s state policy. But Stanford has decided to thumb its nose at that policy. And this comes at a time when Stanford is being investigated by the federal government for its DEI policies and its discrimination against Jewish students. Stanford is going to pay a fine like Columbia, Brown and Harvard (so far). The solution for Stanford is to switch to a meritocracy, don’t discriminate against any group and hopefully salvage what you’ve got left in terms of your reputation.
The problem here is that when people define themselves strictly as part of a group they’re never satisfied with how they are treated. I admire Stanford’s new president. He’s not wasting time fighting with the Trump administration, which will benefit the university in the long run. He’s encouraging the county DA to prosecute the Gaza people who wrecked his office. He’s trying to set standards for job retention for football and basketball coaches that’s been absent for years. He’s asking departments to justify what they’re paying out in employee salaries and the number of people they employ. All this is aimed at success and using the endowment efficiently to remain a top tier university that students want to attend.
It’s false to claim that legacy applicants who are actually admitted aren’t totally competitive with other applicants and that some who aren’t competitive are being admitted anyway. At the same time drawing a connection between layoffs and working around this terrible law is a false choice. Stanford has had way too many employees for the number of students for a long time and it’s about time that Stanford started thumbing its nose at our loony tunes state Legislature.
Palo Alto Voter, do you have any evidence that shows legacy admits are competitive with qualified admits?
I’m saying that legacy applicants who are admitted are just as qualified as other applicants who are admitted. I would also go on to say that DEI applicants who are admitted are not as qualified. I think the admissions department would agree to first part and decline to comment on the second part.
Palo Alto Voter, if legacy applicants are just as qualified as other applicants, then why does Stanford need a legacy admission program?
To separate them from those who are just as qualified who aren’t legacy applicants.
Why would you need to separate these two categories of students if they are both qualified? Why would that be necessary?
In addition, there’s a false impression that admission for legacy applicants is automatic. Far from it.
PA Voter, can you provide any numbers or is this true because you said so?
Well, anecdotally, I was a legacy applicant who didn’t get admitted and I ended up at UC Berkeley much to the dismay of my father. My brother, also. However, Stanford always says that it could admit three or four classes of students with perfect high school records every year if it had the space.
Legacy admissions, like student athletes aren’t the same as making it in on your own merit. This isn’t breaking news.
My husband and I attended UCLA, and none of our three children even applied. We’re very proud of our kids and their ability to make wise decisions that don’t include us.