By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Stanford University will withdraw from the Cal Grant program, a state-funded financial aid program, to maintain its current admissions practices. University officials announced the decision in a statement, citing the ability to use university scholarship funding instead. This move comes as Assemblymember Phil Ting targeted legacy admissions after the Varsity Blues scandal, and student organizers have voiced concerns about admissions policies favoring children of wealthy parents. Ryan Cieslikowski, a Stanford alum and advocate for tackling classism, represents the opposition’s perspective on the matter.
Read the original article here
California Banned Legacy Admissions at Private Schools. Stanford Is Sticking With It, and the whole thing feels like a complicated equation of money, prestige, and, well, a dash of the absurd.
So, here’s the deal: California’s got a new rule. If you’re a private school taking state financial aid, you can’t play favorites with legacy admissions. You know, those folks whose parents went there, and suddenly their application gets a little extra… attention. Stanford, however, is playing a different game. They’re opting out of that state financial aid program entirely. Why? Because they want to keep their legacy admission process, which essentially means they are choosing to prioritize their own rules.
The initial reaction is a mix of understanding, maybe a little cynicism, and a touch of “well, duh.” The government has a duty to ensure public funds are spent fairly. Stanford, being a private entity, has the right to chart its own course. The thing is, Stanford likely did the math, and the big-money donors probably give way more than the state does. It’s a simple financial decision. And let’s be honest, maybe it’s also a way to avoid a mountain of bureaucratic paperwork. Legacy admissions were never necessarily a great idea in the first place, but in America, money talks.
It’s true, though, that being a legacy student doesn’t guarantee success. You still have to earn your grades and your degree. Some of these legacies crash and burn, having paid a fortune for the privilege. Stanford, with its enormous endowment, could theoretically offer free tuition to many deserving students. They’re giving full scholarships to a lot of brilliant students, and that helps lessen the burden on taxpayers. Plus, it might even make them more money to accept the full-price legacy students rather than relying on state financial aid. It’s almost like a form of affirmative action, but for the wealthy.
Then there’s the argument that legacy and donor money is what makes so many opportunities possible. In 2024, Stanford received over a billion and a half in donations. Stanford used around two billion on academic and financial aid disbursements. Those donations are how a lot of students with less economic advantages can even afford to go to school. The reality is that these legacies, while perhaps not always the academic cream of the crop, bring a certain networking advantage. Wouldn’t you love to have a roommate whose parent is a big name in your field?
Let’s be real, the money is what makes Stanford so great. It attracts top talent and funds cutting-edge research. That’s why almost every building has a name on it, that’s why they are always doing construction. It’s the money and the connections. Without those things, they wouldn’t be able to offer the services, the scholarships, or the world class facilities for the students who earned their place there.
Some see the whole thing as Stanford trying to maintain its status quo. The university may be getting a reputation for being a “nepo mill”. At any rate, it is an interesting situation to watch in the long run. Some might argue that because Stanford is making exceptions for the richest, it may diminish the value of their degrees over time. It might also increase the prestige of other universities. But the fact is, Stanford needs donations. And if letting in a few legacies helps, then that’s that.
It’s an unfair system, no doubt. But at the end of the day, both sides have their rights, and it doesn’t seem like either is trying to force the other to capitulate. The fact that this system allows Stanford to offer free and reduced tuition to so many students is another layer to consider.
The central question is whether legacy admissions are in the public’s best interest for these tax-exempt educational institutions. It could be an interesting debate. Ultimately, Stanford is probably going to do what it needs to raise money.
The reality of the situation seems to be purely transactional. Stanford is weighing whether it benefits more from state money or alumni donations, and it’s pretty clear that alumni are the ones making a big difference. Compared to what they get from alumni donations, the state’s money is a drop in the bucket. At the end of the day, it’s a private school. They can make the decision on what they need to do to be a world-class university.
Ultimately, the issue is whether legacy students are limited to, say, 10% or less, and whether those students are paying a lot of money. The goal is to attract talent alongside the money, so people can learn to become more intellectually savvy, to build great connections, and to start new companies.
The point is, Stanford’s doing what it needs to do to be an incubator for new technology. The smart people need the money people, and the money people need the smart people. This arrangement may seem unfair to some, but it’s a complex ecosystem that ultimately drives innovation and academic excellence.