Stanford Doubles Down on Legacy Admissions and Standardized Testing - Even at a Cost

In a move that has reignited debates about access, equity, and elitism in higher education, Stanford University has announced two bold and controversial admissions policy decisions: it will reinstate mandatory standardized testing starting in fall 2026, and it will continue to consider legacy status in its admissions process. These choices come with a financial cost, as Stanford students will no longer be eligible for California’s Cal Grant program due to a new state law banning aid to schools that maintain legacy preferences.

While Stanford has promised to replace the lost Cal Grant aid with institutional scholarship funds, the symbolism of the decision is what’s drawing national attention.

“Stanford is making an active decision to preserve an inequitable practice rather than expanding opportunity,” said Ellie Eckerson Peters of the Institute for Higher Education Policy.

This move places Stanford in sharp contrast with a growing list of peer institutions, like Johns Hopkins and Amherst College, that have phased out legacy preferences over the past decade in favor of broadening access. For many critics, Stanford’s choice signals a deeper institutional priority: protecting long-standing relationships with wealthy alumni and donors, even at the expense of public optics and financial partnership with the state.

Legacy Admissions: A “Historic Program” or a Modern Roadblock?

Legacy admissions - giving an edge to applicants whose family members attended the university - have long been a fixture in elite college admissions, but they’ve increasingly come under scrutiny for perpetuating generational privilege. Stanford has acknowledged that it is “studying” its legacy policy, but the university has opted to maintain it for now despite California’s decision to penalize that choice by withholding state financial aid.

The justification? Some, like Stanford student Teddy Ganea, argue legacy admissions uphold meritocracy by ensuring social and financial stability in elite institutions:

“Legacy is a key engine of American meritocracy,” Ganea wrote in The Stanford Review. “Outlawing the practice is a monumental blunder… moving America towards a more unmeritocratic elite.”

That’s one view. But data suggest otherwise. A 2010 review of top universities found no significant link between legacy preference and alumni giving, which is a common argument for keeping the practice. Meanwhile, a February 2024 report from Education Reform Now showed that more than half of legacy-preferring schools have abandoned the policy in the last decade.

Standardized Testing Returns—With a Message

Alongside the legacy decision, Stanford announced that beginning in 2026, all applicants will again be required to submit SAT or ACT scores, marking an end to a test-optional policy first enacted during the pandemic.

In its announcement, the university cited its commitment to “academic excellence” and the usefulness of scores in understanding applicants’ academic preparation across a wide range of schools and backgrounds.

The decision comes amid a broader resurgence of testing requirements at selective institutions, with many arguing that standardized tests help contextualize grades and coursework from high schools of vastly different resources and rigor.

Still, the optics of requiring testing and preserving legacy admissions - two policies frequently criticized for reinforcing systemic inequities - are striking. Particularly when the shift comes at a moment of national conversation about privilege and access in higher education, and following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision on affirmative action.

The Tradeoff: Financial Aid vs. Institutional Autonomy

By keeping legacy admissions in place, Stanford is now forfeiting state-funded Cal Grant aid for its students, starting September 2025. The university says it will make up the difference with its own financial aid, but this is more than just a funding question. It’s a values statement.

Stanford’s decision prioritizes control over its admissions process, especially the ability to favor children of alumni and donors, over aligning with a state policy aimed at equity. With a $36 billion endowment, Stanford can afford to make that tradeoff. But should it?

What Happens Next?

To Stanford’s credit, the university is also taking steps to expand opportunity. It plans to increase its incoming class size by about 150 students and says that approximately 20% of each class are first-generation college students.

Still, the two policy announcements make clear that Stanford is staking its identity as an elite institution on exclusivity, academic rigor, and the preservation of tradition - even as it goes against broader trends in higher education access reform.

Whether that strengthens Stanford’s prestige or damages its reputation for inclusion remains to be seen, but in the court of public opinion, it’s clear: Stanford is charting its own course, no matter the cost.