
Stanford preserves legacy admissions by pulling out of Cal Grant aid program
By declining Cal Grants, Stanford can continue giving admissions preference to hundreds of students who are related to alumni or whose relatives have given money to the university. The statewide ban on such legacy and donor-driven admissions takes effect Sept. 1 under Assembly Bill 1780, which was signed into law last year.
Stanford officials say they will cover the canceled aid with university money, and that it will cost just $4 million a year.
'The university will continue to study the consideration of legacy status in admissions and opt out of state financial aid funding in order to comply with recent California legislation,' university officials said in a statement posted on their website over the summer. The statement noted that such admits need to be academically qualified to be considered.
'I was genuinely shocked to see Stanford make this decision. I was surprised that Stanford decided that they would rather put the thumb on the scale for the richest students than take Cal Grant money,' said James Murphy, director of postsecondary policy at Education Reform Now, a think tank that opposes legacy admissions.
Stanford is one of six California private schools that last year reported giving preferential admissions to the children of alumni or wealthy donors. Stanford said it admitted 295 students this way in fall 2023, or 13.6% of all undergraduates admitted that year. The other private schools that relied on the practice were Santa Clara University, the University of Southern California, Northeastern University Oakland (formerly Mills College), Claremont McKenna College and Harvey Mudd College. None has said it was pulling out of the Cal Grant program.
A wave of opposition to legacy and donor admissions emerged after the 2019 nationwide admissions bribery scandal known as Varsity Blues, in which it was revealed that wealthy parents, including celebrities, had cheated to get their children into Stanford, the University of Southern California, UCLA, UC Berkeley and other prestigious schools across the country.
Opposition to legacy admissions strengthened in 2023, after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action in higher education. That ruling made it illegal for universities across the country to consider the race of applicants in admissions decisions.
Then-Assemblymember Phil Ting, D-S.F., who last year authored California's ban on legacy admissions, called the practice 'affirmative action for the wealthiest Americans.'
Another critic, Stanford alumnus Ryan Cieslikowski, who has pushed for similar bans across the country, said Tuesday that 'by clinging to legacy preferences,' the university is sending the message that 'the children of wealthy alumni and donors come first.'
Stanford says that no one who would have received state aid will be able to tell the difference, and they need to take no action.
'Stanford will substitute university scholarship funding for California student financial assistance programs, including the Cal Grant program,' the university told the Chronicle in an email Tuesday.
Stanford already pays $486 million a year to fully cover the $67,731 tuition plus room and board for students from families with annual income of less than $100,000.
Pulling out of the state aid program will cost the university about $4 million a year to make up the difference, campus officials said Tuesday, noting that about 440 Stanford undergraduates and 60 graduate students received Cal Grants or Golden State Teacher Grants last year. This year's maximum Cal Grant for private school attendance is $9,708.
Yet the decision to spend more to preserve legacy and donor admissions comes as Stanford is preparing to permanently lay off or eliminate 363 staff jobs in October to reduce its budget by an unspecified amount in the face or rising costs driven in part by federal policy changes. This includes a new 8% tax on its endowment — up from 1.4% — that is expected to cost Stanford $200 million this year.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
a minute ago
- Epoch Times
More Than 100,000 Americans Apply to Join ICE: DHS
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has received more than 100,000 job applications from Americans, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Aug. 12. 'Our country is calling you to serve at ICE. In the wake of the Biden administration's failed immigration policies, your country needs dedicated men and women of ICE to get the worst of the worst criminals out of our country,' DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement.


CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
Healthy Returns: FDA launches program to streamline creation of new U.S. drug manufacturing sites
A new program from the Trump administration aims to make setting up manufacturing plants in the U.S. less of a headache for the pharmaceutical industry. The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday announced a new "PreCheck" program, which will use a two-phase approach to help boost domestic drug manufacturing after it shrunk dramatically over the past two decades. The announcement is a direct response to President Donald Trump's executive order in May calling on the FDA to reduce regulatory hurdles for domestic drug production in the U.S.. That order asked the agency to cut the amount of time it takes to approve new plants by eliminating unnecessary requirements, while also increasing the fees for and inspections of manufacturing facilities abroad. It follows a flurry of plans for new U.S. manufacturing investments from several drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie and Eli Lilly, in a bid to build goodwill with Trump. Still, the president could impose tariffs on pharmaceuticals imported into the U.S. any day now — a move that the industry argues could harm innovation and patient access to certain treatments. So, why has Trump made reshoring drug production a key facet of his trade policy? More than half of pharmaceuticals distributed in the U.S. are manufactured overseas, according to a release from the FDA. Only 11% of companies that produce active pharmaceutical ingredients are based in the U.S., while a significant share are in China and India, the agency added. The White House also estimates that it can currently take five to 10 years to build new manufacturing capacity for pharmaceuticals, which it previously called "unacceptable from a national-security standpoint." "Our gradual overreliance on foreign drug manufacturing has created national security risks," FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said in the release on Thursday. "The FDA PreCheck initiative is one of many steps FDA is taking that can help reverse America's reliance on foreign drug manufacturing and ensure that Americans have a resilient, strong, and domestic drug supply." Here's how the two phases of the program work: The FDA will host a public meeting on Sept. 30, where it will present on the program and discuss other proposals to "overcome current onshoring challenge," among other issues. Until then, concrete details on the program are sparse. It's unclear what requirements the FDA could eliminate, and how much less time it could take to approve new sites. We'll continue to watch as this program gets finalized and implemented, so stay tuned for our coverage! Feel free to send any tips, suggestions, story ideas and data to Annika at Like it or not, more and more patients are turning to OpenAI's artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT to answer questions about their health care. And the company is paying attention. OpenAI launched its latest large-scale AI model called GPT-5 last week, and the startup said it's the "best model yet" for health-related queries. The product is designed to proactively flag health concerns, ask relevant questions and generate more precise and reliable responses, the company said in a blog post. "Health care is maybe the area where there's the strongest improvement of any (is this one extra?) of any category," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told CNBC's "Squawk Box" in an interview about GPT-5 on Friday. Altman said health-related questions make up a "huge fraction" of ChatGPT usage. In a post on X, he said he hopes GPT-5's health capabilities will "provide real service to people." OpenAI said GPT-5 scores "significantly higher" than previous models on its health-care AI benchmark called Health Bench. The company released Health Bench in May, and it's designed to measure how well AI models perform in realistic health scenarios. HealthBench was developed alongside 262 doctors from 60 countries. OpenAI said it's based on 5,000 conversations that simulate interactions between individual users or clinicians and AI models. OpenAI is also touting GPT-5 as a helpful tool for medical research. The company released a two-minute-long video with Dr. Derya Unutmaz, a professor and human immunologist, which demonstrates how he has been using the model. Unutmaz said GPT-5 is able to help him brainstorm, interpret data and save him time by predicting outcomes of potential experiments. "I think GPT-5 will help the patients to advocate for themselves, and I think that will empower the patients to feel more confident when they talk to their doctors," Unutmaz said in the video. Feel free to send any tips, suggestions, story ideas and data to Ashley at


The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's autocratic dreams come true as National Guard turns DC into a police state
Nothing in President Trump's second term has captured his autocratic imagination quite like turning federalized police and military troops against the Black mayors of Democratic cities. Trump's target list expanded on Monday, when he seized control of Washington, D.C.'s local police and deployed 800 National Guard troops to patrol the streets. Trump spared no bluster in portraying the people of the District of Columbia as animals consumed by violent criminal instincts, remarking to reporters that they 'fight back until you knock the hell out of them, because it's the only language they understand.' That would come as a shock to the D.C. police, who confirmed that violent crime is down 26 percent in the city this year and currently sits at a 30-year low. Of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone to see Trump portraying a majority-minority city as a haven of crime and thuggery. He did the same in Los Angeles, where he dispatched the National Guard in June to terrorize the city's mayor — his long-time political foe Karen Bass. Now Trump is hinting at expanding his deployments to Chicago and New York, two more Democratic cities with Black mayors and large minority populations. Are you noticing a pattern? Trump's federal takeover of Washington blends the president's love of strongman authoritarianism with his passion for spreading toxic lies about nonwhite people, as he did in grand fashion at his hate-filled October 2024 rally at Madison Square Garden, or as he continues to do in his threats to arrest New York's Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani. After rolling over LA and Washington with minimal resistance, it's naive to think Trump will ever stop at threats. Worse still, many of the bigoted sycophants who boosted Trump's hateful rhetoric during the campaign are now seated in positions of real power, especially at the Department of Justice and the FBI. This time Trump has ensured the loyalty of his officers. This time there won't be a Gen. Mark Milley with the moral courage to publicly condemn Trump for his first-term militaristic excesses. Democratic lines about Washington's low crime rate won't make a difference to the White House because what Trump is doing has fundamentally nothing to do with crime. Trump loves the way deploying troops makes him feel. He loves the raw, unadulterated power of moving hundreds or thousands of soldiers into cities as civilian authorities ineffectively try to stop him. In a second term marked by a string of high-profile fumbles, sending out the troops makes Trump feel like he's actually doing something. The president's fixation on being seen as a hard-nosed military leader is one reason why his immigration raids have grown in theatricality and severity — even as more than 55 percent of Americans (including 15 percent of Republicans voters) say his Immigration and Customs Enforcement has gone too far. It's also why a growing number of political observers are sounding alarms about how Trump is misusing the nation's nonpartisan military to settle domestic political fights. In a sign of just how far Trump is willing to go to realize his autocratic dreams, he also asked the Supreme Court last week to allow racial profiling in California ICE raids under the bogus argument that it's simply too hard to deport illegal immigrants without it. Instead, Trump is proposing a standard where simply speaking Spanish would be sufficient grounds for arrest — an idea so repulsive that a majority of Americans have opposed it for four decades. It took less than a year for a second Trump administration to fill the streets of major cities with soldiers, ICE agents and heavy armored vehicles. The cost of those military excursions to the taxpayer has been enormous, with initial Pentagon estimates of $134 million for Los Angeles alone. Those numbers have almost certainly swelled as ICE raids have grown to match Trump's fury at Mayor Bass, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats. The skyrocketing cost of Trump's deployments is secondary, to be sure, to the imminent threat they pose to the growing number of American citizens caught in ICE's overly broad immigration dragnets. Since Trump's military mobilizations are driven by optics and ego instead of policy, Trump is free to declare them successful even if the raids fail to net a single legal arrest. Trump's latest incursion into Washington won't be the last. But this is not Russia or Venezuela. Americans get to vote in elections as early as this November, and millions of those voters plan to use their ballot to oppose Republicans' growing police state. None of that seems to matter to Trump. After all, the ratings are huge.