Stanford undoubtedly did the math and determined they would lose money overall (gifts are 7% of Stanford's income, tuition and fees 13%).

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.)

▲

ghaff 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Universities definitely favor unrestricted gifts. But, to the degree that you make a restricted gift, you can be sure that there's often money shuffling in the background to the degree the gift is substantial.

▲

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

>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.)

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.

▲

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

If rich people stopped going to Stanford, Stanford will loose its reputation in a few generations.

	▲	g8oz 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think it works in the opposite direction. Rich parents basically buy admission for their mediocre offspring at a university made prestigious by the abundance of very intelligent but less wealthy students.

▲

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

That 7% from rich people, where does it go?

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.

▲

musicale 6 days ago | parent [-]

Stanford presumably determined that the loss of donation money would be greater than what they would have to spend to cover financial aid without help from Cal Grants.

▲

ivape 6 days ago | parent [-]

You are not reading what I'm saying acceptingly. I am suggesting the math they did only helped them conclude they would have less money. It did not lead to a conclusion that they can't keep being an elite institution servicing and creating high level academics at fair prices while still being profitable and growing financially. Very roundabout way of suggesting they are greedy at their core.

	▲	musicale 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"Follow the money" is a good point. Universities spend an enormous amount of money, and it's often hard to see what it's actually being used on. Stanford has so many administrative staff that they built a separate campus for them in Redwood City. https://redwoodcity.stanford.edu
	▲	6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

musicale 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

edit/correction: 21% was the original proposal but it was reduced to 8% in the final bill that was passed