When you prefer legacy students, you perpetuate the kind of discrimination in effect when their parents and grandparents were admitted.

Perhaps this is better for the school as a whole. But when that argument was made to help students who were previously discriminated against, people swore that didn't matter, because all discrimination is bad.

Legacy students are the easiest way to see that discrimination is not over yet. There are many others but this one is really transparent. There are many potential ways to deal with it, but "end discrimination for them but not for me" isn't a good one.

▲

WillPostForFood 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Stanford undergrad is only 22% white so this clearly isn't happening in practice.

▲

musicale 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> When you prefer legacy students, you perpetuate the kind of discrimination in effect when their parents and grandparents were admitted.

Universities will likely claim that legacy and (especially) donor admits bring more money into the university, which in theory allows them to increase overall economic diversity (and likely social and demographic diversity as well) of the student body by admitting a larger number of qualified students under a need-blind admission policy.

▲

jfengel 6 days ago | parent [-]

Many of these universities have vast investment funds. Expanding would indeed allow them to provide more education, but that does not appear to be their goal.

	▲	musicale 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Expanding need-blind isn't the same as overall expansion. Many universities have adopted need-blind admissions (not including donor admits), eliminated or reduced student loans, and/or expanded undergraduate admissions - all efforts that support economic diversity. Stanford (for example) implemented need-blind for domestic student admissions (but still not international), and largely eliminated (or at least reduced) undergraduate student loans. Undergraduate class size seems to have expanded from ~6500 (?) in 1983 to ~7500 today, and may continue to expand slightly: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/04/president-levins-r... However, it's worth noting that Stanford acceptance was above 25% for the class of 1979 (vs. 3.6% for the class of 2029.) Application growth has drastically outpaced admissions and class growth. https://irds.stanford.edu/data-findings/undergraduate-admiss... Additionally, administrations have generally expanded much faster than the undergraduate student population.

▲

corimaith 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But it's the people here that want more access to these elite circles.

Placing the notion of discrimination in the context of demanding access to an elite circle is like demanding access to a banquet while denouncing the recipe. It's incoherent.

▲

ryandrake 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes. Imagine if you could get an elite Wall Street or Consulting job based significantly on who your dad is. That would be unfair, discriminatory, and otherwise pretty terrible, except for the already elite and wealthy. Oh, wait...that already happens, and it's indeed terrible in all the ways you would predict. This really needs to be cracked down on, but the rich and powerful will always support it.

	▲	burnt-resistor 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		The rich having their way is the blueprint for a third-world country.