When California lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 1780 in 2024, it was hailed as a long-overdue step toward fairness in college admissions. The law prohibits private universities that receive state-funded Cal Grant aid from considering applicants’ alumni or donor ties.
But the long-hoped-for progress didn’t last long. Beginning in the 2025-26 application cycle, Stanford University will resume legacy and donor considerations in undergraduate admissions, reversing previous steps to eliminate the practice. That decision is not only a policy change, but a step backward for fairness in admissions.
Cal Grant and the effects of program withdrawal
In order to legally consider legacy and donor status in admissions, Stanford walked away from the Cal Grant program, cutting itself off from state aid that primarily supports low-income students. Stanford says that it will replace state dollars with its own scholarship funding. Of the six California private universities that were grant recipients, Stanford is the only one so far that has pulled out of the program.
Cal Grants are California’s flagship need-based student aid programs, targeting low-income students; they provide up to $9,708 a year to those who qualify. At Stanford, roughly 440 undergraduates and 60 graduate students benefitted from Cal Grants or other state aid last year, support that the university now says it will replace with a private scholarship fund, costing around $4 million annually.
The university’s defense of the decision is that legacy admissions keep wealthy alumni invested in the institution. Families with multi-generational ties to a college were and will continue to be “far more likely” to donate to the school, officials say. In other words, Stanford’s $4 million replacement fund isn’t an act of generosity. It’s more of an investment in continuing a system that, by catering to wealthy donors, pays off financially.
Who pays the price?
The practice of legacy admissions is not new. It originated in the early 20th century as elite colleges sought ways to maintain their student body demographics. This came at a time when many working-class immigrant families were applying to prestigious universities, hoping to be admitted through academic merit alone. By favoring the children of alumni, universities could maintain continuity and protect a certain subset of families.
In recent years, however, that system has been widely criticized. Universities like Johns Hopkins discontinued legacy admissions in 2019, citing a desire for fairer admissions. Other schools, including the UC system, ended the practice in 1998. Stanford’s reversal undermines that progress.
The decision sends a message that putting donor and legacy preferences over fairer admissions is acceptable. What was supposed to be a push for equity has come to a standstill or possibly even a complete reversal.
That’s why Stanford’s move extends outside its own campus. As a leading research and academic institution, it’s visibly bypassing policies intended for fairness, pointing out how money talks louder than equality. Other private universities may now see Stanford’s move as validation for continuing practices in an era where legacy admissions are being slowly dismantled. And if one of the richest schools in the world refuses to lead, the question becomes: Who will?
Stanford could have chosen to set an example. Instead, it doubled down on tradition and privilege. That choice weakens the broader fight for equal opportunity, undermining years of progress toward fairer admissions.
