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).