Rather than claim that students are admitted based on test scores and grades alone, why don't universities simply say that admissions are also based on factors such as how influential or wealthy the parents are? Doing so would not be a problem, the only problem is not being transparent about it. Stanford is very clear about the fact that "legacy" applicants (meaning their parents or siblings are at Stanford and presumably the family will be active donors) get priority.
> Rather than claim that students are admitted based on test scores and grades alone, why don't universities simply say that admissions are also based on factors such as how influential or wealthy the parents are? Doing so would not be a problem
For public universities like those in the University of California system, to whom the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution (and, often, similar and sometimes more expansive provisions of state constitutions) apply, it probably would be a problem.
At least one reason: universities are overwhelmingly funded by public money. Perhaps (/perhaps/) private institutions should be allowed to explicitly advantage wealthy applicants, but forcing all of us fund institutions that advantage the wealthy is perverse.
Note, even "private" universities (eg not the UC school discussed here) receive tremendous amounts of public money, as well as tax-exempt status. See, for e.x. [1]: the Ivy league received >$40B in public money and benefits from 2010-2015.
IIRC, research at MIT is >66% funded by federal grants.
> meaning their parents or siblings are at Stanford and presumably the family will be active donors
Not going out to bat for legacy admissions, but it's not always tit-for-tat related to donations and there are other reasons schools do it other than just $$$ from donations.
The uber-rich aren't getting in through a generic legacy boost.
