<p>That study is flawed–I’m 100% certain that if Stanford were to ignore legacy status altogether (i.e. be blind to it), legacies would still get in at much higher rates. Why? Anyone who knows anything about socioeconomic factors in admissions will tell you, the higher the income a student’s family has, the more likely that student is to be admitted to colleges, esp. top ones, which is why students from the bottom economic quartile make up 3% of the top 130 or so colleges, whereas students from the top economic quartile make up some 75%. Not only that, but studies show that the more educated the parents are, the smarter and more successful their children are. So consider that people leave Stanford with an *elite *education and become successful; their children are given every opportunity to succeed, raised in a stimulating environment, and are already primed to get into Stanford. Now consider that because alumni loved their time at Stanford, they will likely push their kids to apply, not to mention the kids are going to be hearing about Stanford from a very small age, so they disproportionately consider Stanford their first choice. Add on that Stanford has become even more attractive over the past 20 years (more prestige, beautiful campus, top programs, etc.), and it’s no surprise that legacies *seem *to have a significant advantage in admissions (and of course, regardless of their legacy status, they will typically rank among the top applicants to all colleges). I’d love to see a full study of “legacy cross-admissions,” i.e. how much more likely are Stanford legacies to get into a school like Harvard or Yale? I have a feeling it would produce similar results, as the article says: “Education researchers point out that students whose parents attended elite colleges are also more likely to have advantages like family wealth and private school education.” It’s like the study realizes its statistical flaws but doesn’t really try to control for all the variables.</p>
<p>This is further supported by this statement:</p>
<p>"Those whose parents did graduate work there or who had a grandparent, sibling, uncle or aunt who attended the college were, by comparison, only twice as likely to be admitted. "</p>
<p>Grandparents are not as influential as parents in making their children successful. Thus there’s less of a statistical significance between admission likelihood and legacy status (for which Stanford considers grandparents and parents). But there still seems to be an advantage, which isn’t surprising: grandparents raise the kid’s parents to be successful, which then gives their children an advantage.</p>
<p>Legacy admissions are exaggerated. So are URM admissions. So are athlete admissions. In general on CC this is probably because of bitterness (from rejection) or just plain elitism.</p>