Stanford bringing back legacy preference and test required

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

It cracks me up that people can't understand why universities are going to start reinstating legacy. We just saw an entire generation get preference for college admission based on race. Now that that first generation is about to have their children apply, right when affirmative action gets abolished, this is how affirmative action carries through to the next generation. It's quite obvious. Legacy should be upheld everywhere.

Cite that legacy will support affirmative action?

I agree that this thread seems to be jumping the shark….
Um, does the previously poster really think Stanford wants to do this to help black and brown folks? I laughed out loud when I read that.

This whole reaction reinforces my view that many people are just closeted racist. Either blatantly racist, e.g., “the DCA crash was because of DEI. So let’s rid the world of any inclusion initiatives ” Or paternalistic racist, e.g., “there is no way a black or brown kid could actually be _more_ or even the same qualified as my kid.”

I’m so tired of these complaints.

Is that paternalism the reason why they give them preferences because they don't think the black and brown kids can compete with it?

They did it to try to combat entitled people like you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:losers

public sentiment is against legacy policies at elite colleges. but I guess stanford can't afford to go against its elite donors given their current cash crunch??

What makes these these schools special is the money.

Ivy league without money over centuries is Rutgers.

Now that their endowments are taxed things may change. Enjoy your legacy status to a glorified Rutgers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:losers

public sentiment is against legacy policies at elite colleges. but I guess stanford can't afford to go against its elite donors given their current cash crunch??

What makes these these schools special is the money.

Ivy league without money over centuries is Rutgers.

Now that their endowments are taxed things may change. Enjoy your legacy status to a glorified Rutgers!

lol if you think these measly 1-3% endowment taxes will make a difference. you’ll remain poor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common sense is returning.

Nothing common sense about ruining merit so rich kids can go to colleges they already have every advantage getting into. Common sense is banning this stupid policy in the US. Many institutions have dropped this. Stanford only needs to do this because to trump’s “common sense” bull$hit costing them hundreds of millions and his absolute trash economy.

Anyone notice that nobody was going after legacy until the affirmative action preference went away? It was almost as if affirmative action was providing moral cover for legacy preferences.

All of these preferences are bullshit. Sure only the racial preferences are illegal but in just about any asian country you would see rioting if there was a legacy preference. You might as well try to establish an actual aristocracy with noble titles and everything. And I don't think there is another country in the world that has athletic preferences like we do. And donor preferences seems corrupt AF to anyone from any other country. But up until just 5 minutes ago, nobody complained about any of this until the banning of affirmative action suddenly made all the other preferences seem bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

It cracks me up that people can't understand why universities are going to start reinstating legacy. We just saw an entire generation get preference for college admission based on race. Now that that first generation is about to have their children apply, right when affirmative action gets abolished, this is how affirmative action carries through to the next generation. It's quite obvious. Legacy should be upheld everywhere.

Cite that legacy will support affirmative action?

Math.

The alumni racial demographic is looking less and less white these days and they can get closer to their racial profile from 1990 to 2000 by giving a legacy preference. Without the preference, these schools look like very asian/white.

For like a single decade where dei was vibrant? The class of 2000 and 2029 look closer to each other than 2018

cite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

It cracks me up that people can't understand why universities are going to start reinstating legacy. We just saw an entire generation get preference for college admission based on race. Now that that first generation is about to have their children apply, right when affirmative action gets abolished, this is how affirmative action carries through to the next generation. It's quite obvious. Legacy should be upheld everywhere.

Cite that legacy will support affirmative action?

Math.

The alumni racial demographic is looking less and less white these days and they can get closer to their racial profile from 1990 to 2000 by giving a legacy preference. Without the preference, these schools look like very asian/white.

Nice anecdote

Do you know what anecdote means and when it should be used?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privilege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

But we don't want to have the same chance of getting in as the non-legacy applicant.
If our kid is just as good as every other kid that gets accepted why shouldn't he have a preference based on the fact that he is much likelier to donate as an adult than a non-legacy admit.
It's not like he is getting a 200 point SAT advantage or a 5 point ACT advantage. He is high stat but because of the incredibly large applicant pool, admissions has become somewhat random and his chances are probably 25% or less but with a legacy preferences it might be 50% or more.

Your privilege is showing. Why do you feel so entitled?

How much have you donate to Stanford?

Too bad your kid can’t get in without a boost.

He can get in but he is at the mercy of the RNG. I like his chances with the legacy preference a lot more. His stats are above the median and he has great extracurriculars but this is 2025 and there is almost no way to get in without a hook and for my kid, legacy was going to be his hook, until newsom banned legacy preferences. I'm glad they're back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

It cracks me up that people can't understand why universities are going to start reinstating legacy. We just saw an entire generation get preference for college admission based on race. Now that that first generation is about to have their children apply, right when affirmative action gets abolished, this is how affirmative action carries through to the next generation. It's quite obvious. Legacy should be upheld everywhere.

Cite that legacy will support affirmative action?

I agree that this thread seems to be jumping the shark….
Um, does the previously poster really think Stanford wants to do this to help black and brown folks? I laughed out loud when I read that.

This whole reaction reinforces my view that many people are just closeted racist. Either blatantly racist, e.g., “the DCA crash was because of DEI. So let’s rid the world of any inclusion initiatives ” Or paternalistic racist, e.g., “there is no way a black or brown kid could actually be _more_ or even the same qualified as my kid.”

I’m so tired of these complaints.

Is that paternalism the reason why they give them preferences because they don't think the black and brown kids can compete with it?

They did it to try to combat entitled people like you

Why only the black and brown kids? Why not the non-privileged white and asian kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:losers

public sentiment is against legacy policies at elite colleges. but I guess stanford can't afford to go against its elite donors given their current cash crunch??

What makes these these schools special is the money.

Ivy league without money over centuries is Rutgers.

Now that their endowments are taxed things may change. Enjoy your legacy status to a glorified Rutgers!

How much do you think that endowment tax hits for?

My understanding is that it is not a tax on assets, it's a tax on income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:losers

public sentiment is against legacy policies at elite colleges. but I guess stanford can't afford to go against its elite donors given their current cash crunch??

What makes these these schools special is the money.

Ivy league without money over centuries is Rutgers.

Now that their endowments are taxed things may change. Enjoy your legacy status to a glorified Rutgers!

lol if you think these measly 1-3% endowment taxes will make a difference. you’ll remain poor

lol it’s already made a difference which is why they are desperate for legacy donors, idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

It cracks me up that people can't understand why universities are going to start reinstating legacy. We just saw an entire generation get preference for college admission based on race. Now that that first generation is about to have their children apply, right when affirmative action gets abolished, this is how affirmative action carries through to the next generation. It's quite obvious. Legacy should be upheld everywhere.

Cite that legacy will support affirmative action?

I agree that this thread seems to be jumping the shark….
Um, does the previously poster really think Stanford wants to do this to help black and brown folks? I laughed out loud when I read that.

This whole reaction reinforces my view that many people are just closeted racist. Either blatantly racist, e.g., “the DCA crash was because of DEI. So let’s rid the world of any inclusion initiatives ” Or paternalistic racist, e.g., “there is no way a black or brown kid could actually be _more_ or even the same qualified as my kid.”

I’m so tired of these complaints.

Is that paternalism the reason why they give them preferences because they don't think the black and brown kids can compete with it?

They did it to try to combat entitled people like you

Why only the black and brown kids? Why not the non-privileged white and asian kids?

It’s not my job to explain history and racism to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privilege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

But we don't want to have the same chance of getting in as the non-legacy applicant.
If our kid is just as good as every other kid that gets accepted why shouldn't he have a preference based on the fact that he is much likelier to donate as an adult than a non-legacy admit.
It's not like he is getting a 200 point SAT advantage or a 5 point ACT advantage. He is high stat but because of the incredibly large applicant pool, admissions has become somewhat random and his chances are probably 25% or less but with a legacy preferences it might be 50% or more.

Your privilege is showing. Why do you feel so entitled?

How much have you donate to Stanford?

Too bad your kid can’t get in without a boost.

He can get in but he is at the mercy of the RNG. I like his chances with the legacy preference a lot more. His stats are above the median and he has great extracurriculars but this is 2025 and there is almost no way to get in without a hook and for my kid, legacy was going to be his hook, until newsom banned legacy preferences. I'm glad they're back.

At least you admit your kid wouldn’t get in without a boost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privilege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

But we don't want to have the same chance of getting in as the non-legacy applicant.
If our kid is just as good as every other kid that gets accepted why shouldn't he have a preference based on the fact that he is much likelier to donate as an adult than a non-legacy admit.
It's not like he is getting a 200 point SAT advantage or a 5 point ACT advantage. He is high stat but because of the incredibly large applicant pool, admissions has become somewhat random and his chances are probably 25% or less but with a legacy preferences it might be 50% or more.

Your privilege is showing. Why do you feel so entitled?

How much have you donate to Stanford?

Too bad your kid can’t get in without a boost.

He can get in but he is at the mercy of the RNG. I like his chances with the legacy preference a lot more. His stats are above the median and he has great extracurriculars but this is 2025 and there is almost no way to get in without a hook and for my kid, legacy was going to be his hook, until newsom banned legacy preferences. I'm glad they're back.

I don't blame you at all- everyone just wishes their high stats kid had a hook that would get them into the real shot rather than the RNG pile. Just keep that in mind and be kind and humble if he gets in . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

Like all the peer-reviewed studies showing that current Stanford legacies are dominated by rich white people?

A peer-reviewed text was posted earlier in the thread. Try to keep up.

It cracks me up that people can't understand why universities are going to start reinstating legacy. We just saw an entire generation get preference for college admission based on race. Now that that first generation is about to have their children apply, right when affirmative action gets abolished, this is how affirmative action carries through to the next generation. It's quite obvious. Legacy should be upheld everywhere.

Cite that legacy will support affirmative action?

Math.

The alumni racial demographic is looking less and less white these days and they can get closer to their racial profile from 1990 to 2000 by giving a legacy preference. Without the preference, these schools look like very asian/white.

For like a single decade where dei was vibrant? The class of 2000 and 2029 look closer to each other than 2018

cite

Don't be lazy and go look at the class compositions yourself. I am not your research assistant. It takes no time to find the demographic information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common sense is returning.

Nothing common sense about ruining merit so rich kids can go to colleges they already have every advantage getting into. Common sense is banning this stupid policy in the US. Many institutions have dropped this. Stanford only needs to do this because to trump’s “common sense” bull$hit costing them hundreds of millions and his absolute trash economy.

Anyone notice that nobody was going after legacy until the affirmative action preference went away? It was almost as if affirmative action was providing moral cover for legacy preferences.

All of these preferences are bullshit. Sure only the racial preferences are illegal but in just about any asian country you would see rioting if there was a legacy preference. You might as well try to establish an actual aristocracy with noble titles and everything. And I don't think there is another country in the world that has athletic preferences like we do. And donor preferences seems corrupt AF to anyone from any other country. But up until just 5 minutes ago, nobody complained about any of this until the banning of affirmative action suddenly made all the other preferences seem bad.

+100 Rich white don’t want a true meritocracy. They built a system to maintain privilege and pretend it’s a meritocracy.