This seems reasonable. California doesn't want to subsidize the education of the privileged few who qualify as "legacy admission". And Stanford doesn't want to give up the financial support from alumnus.
Alumni. Stanford may care most about just that one alumnus, but my suspicion is that they care at least as much about other alumni and alumnae. :)
Often "Alums" nowadays, as Alumni is traditionally male gendered.
Not for stanford. Its goals largely boil down to increase the endowment and create a powerful alumni network. Accepting legacies is a great way to accomplish both those things. This is the same reason schools give preference to athletes even though it brings down the schools academics. Competitive athletics requires skills that translate very well to the workplace(grit, teamwork) so successful athletes are likely to become successful corporate workers.
Not as many Nobel prizes - or elements on the periodic table - however. Berkeley (having many more undergrads) also has more alumni.
(But note for both schools that good researchers are not necessarily good undergraduate instructors.)
As a side note, I always found this obsession with sports to be a fascinating aspect of american culture. Being from an entirely different culture, it’s unclear to me why on earth would anyone give a fuck about this.
Also the Olympics seem to be a big thing every four years, particularly in the country where they are being held; Berkeley and Stanford do pretty well in that competition.
But just in case - it’s cool, I wasn’t being judgmental.
> What does stanford offer undergrads that berkeley doesnt? IMO access to legacies and the larger alumni network is about it
Non-academic advantages (e.g. athletics programs, student housing, etc.) are still advantages.
Berkeley has its own set of non-academic advantages, such as closer proximity and access to San Francisco (via BART).
Boo-hoo, rich university loses money. Like the 21% Trump tax on endowment income, etc. Maybe they'll have to fire some useless, non-teaching administrators and build fewer country club dorms and luxury amenities, right?
But... Stanford would probably argue that admitting a single less-qualified donor child can cover the financial aid expenses of dozens of qualified students whose parents simply have less money. (Financial aid is 5% of Stanford's budget.)
If this is true, California's goal of banning legacy and (especially) donor admits could have an unintended consequence of reducing the number of qualified but non-rich students who will be admitted.
But... many gifts are restricted, you say! Buildings. Endowed faculty chairs. Particular research centers and programs. Specialized scholarships. Etc. Nonetheless, Stanford has to balance its budget, and even restricted gifts save money and allow them to shift dollars from one place to another. (Note debt service is 4% of the budget as well.)
Let’s say the school decides they have enough money without that 7%. They figure out they don’t need to be that rich. Does that mean they can’t do more institutionally or does it mean they can’t do more organizationally (which is just get bigger, more heads, more money)? What does it really mean for them to suddenly become ethical and say they don’t want that blood money anymore?
That’s what I’m trying to figure out. It’s a follow the money situation, and it’s important to figure out who is beholden to that 7% when it comes into their system. If we find out it’s the giant cafeteria building, then maybe we settle for a smaller one. But if we find out it’s making certain people fat in the pockets, then you’re on to something.
——
Aside, society should really start encouraging the most talented to consider the ethics of institutions they go to. Whether that be Palantir or Stanford. Legacy admissions is just straight unethical, and Stanford students need to protest this.
Sounds like an argument for taxing the rich, if they've got so much spare money they can carry dozens of other people's kids through school.