[yalok]

> the administration probably done some basic calculation: they get more in donations from alumni who want legacy admissions for their progeny than they get from Cal Grants.

The calculation was beyond basic - I read somewhere here that it was around $3m that they were getting from Cal Grants.

Around 8 years ago, I heard (from a friend of mine) that the min donation to guarantee admission to Stanford was ~$10m. Wouldn’t be surprised that it’s even a higher number nowadays…

[_alternator_]

The crazy thing is that they refused CalGrants not because it forces them to end legacy and donor admissions, but because they’d have to publish data about such admissions.

So the calculation was that a report showing how much unfairness there is in the admissions process will hurt the Stanford ‘brand’ by more that $3M per year. Ouch.

[BrenBarn]

I mean, I think this decision also shows how much unfairness there is. I guess the difference is this is a one-time thing that people may forget about, whereas reports would be required on an ongoing basis.

[gpt5]

Applicants who get admitted due to a (very) large donation are a tiny pool, and unrelated to the legacy admission question.

Their benefit is also much clearer, the $10M donation you mentioned can clearly and directly help a lot of students.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> Their benefit is also much clearer, the $10M donation you mentioned can clearly and directly help a lot of students.

The benefit is clear, I would argue the detriment is also clear: Stanford is arguing that bribery is an acceptable method of doing business, not something that deserves opprobrium.

[abduhl]

Bribery is the main way of doing business in America in 2025:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-08/trump-se...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/07/universities...

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/trumps-war-big-law-le...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/07/tim-...