.

Inside Stanford’s Exclusive Admission Path

Former Stanford Admissions Officers reveal the presence of a separate mechanism for processing applications of students who are children of faculty or top donors.

It is summertime in Palo Alto, and though the weather outside is a beautiful 75 degrees, high school students who once leisurely passed their summers lounging by the pool or skateboarding are instead sharpening their resumes by taking on activities likely to enhance their upcoming college applications.

For top students, summer is marked not as a time of leisure, but as the time to illustrate one’s unique passion to admissions officers. Every activity, every class and every test counts towards getting a leg up in the competitive world of admissions at top universities.

For those applying to Stanford, some Palo Alto students may have a leg up in the process.

Information obtained from two former admissions officers at Stanford University gives a deeper insight into who is eligible to receive preferential treatment, what that preferential treatment entails, and who has direct access to the decision makers.

Despite common perception, enrollment applications received at Stanford from children of alumni - known as ‘legacies’ – are treated differently than those received from children of faculty and donors. While all receive preferential treatment, legacy or even double legacy status does not put a student in the same category as children of faculty or children of top donors.

“It is important not to muddy the waters between these groups,” said Marci Reichelstein, a former Stanford Admissions Officer and owner of a college admissions consulting company.

While a legacy student gets extra points in the admission process, according to Reichelstein, children of faculty are given a “golden halo” and processed differently.

“There is a different evaluation mechanism and funnel,” said Reichelstein.

An advantage of this funnel includes a direct line to the Dean’s office, which allows faculty to get in direct touch with senior admissions officers to lobby on their children’s’ behalf.

Reichelstein stressed that this direct line was not a guarantee of an admission.

Stanford’s admission rate for the Class of 2016 was 6.6 percent, according to statistics released by the Office of Undergraduate Admission.

However, according to Reichelstein, the admission rate for children of faculty members is much higher.

“We’re not talking just a boost like a 6.6 percent to 15 percent, we’re talking a multiple or ‘x-factor boost,’” she said.

Reichelstein says she is aware of the specific admissions rate for these students but declined to reveal the number.

When asked for this information, Lisa Lapin, Stanford Assistant Vice President for Communications, denied that the university kept this data.

“This is not data that we have available,” said Lapin in an email, clarifying that by ‘we’, she meant “all of Stanford University.”

According to Irena Smith, another former Stanford Admissions Officer and College Admissions Consultant, influential professors can further leverage their influence to gain their student’s admission by threatening to move valuable research funding to another university.

“If it is well known that if a faculty member gets angry, he will go elsewhere, then that’s something that is considered,” said Smith.

Despite the ‘x-factor,’ both Reichelstein and Smith emphasized the fact that children of faculty members are still expected to perform up to Stanford’s academic standards and typically will have SAT scores and GPA in the normal range for the incoming freshman class.

The children of influential donors play by different rules. According to Reichelstein, not all donors are equal.

“The threshold to make a difference in admissions is very high given the incredible amount of money in this area,” she said.

In 2011, Stanford alumni gave 36 percent of the $709 million raised by endowment that year. That amounts to over $250 million raised in a single year from alumni contributions.

Reichelstein acknowledged the presence of an informal donation threshold to receive a spot at Stanford but again declined to state the specific amount.

At least two sources connected to the Stanford admissions process - who requested anonymity - told us the threshold for preferential treatment was $500,000. Stanford officials refused to give a specific figure for this article.

Smith and Reichelstein both stated that informal agreements are worked out between the admissions department and large donors, and those agreements consider both the amount the person has donated and their plans for future donations.

The assumptions for such applicants are shifted.

“With big donors, if a kid is theoretically admissible and contributes in other ways then that’s something that is worked out,” said Smith, referring to a financial donation as the ‘other way’ of contribution.

The impact of this preferential treatment can lead to a shortage of spaces available for Bay Area residents who do not have a faculty or donor relationship with Stanford.

 Both Reichelstein and Smith stressed that Stanford is already oversaturated with Bay Area and particularly Palo Alto students.

“It definitely does not confer an advantage to be applying from an overrepresented area,” said Smith

Multiple calls were made to the Stanford Office of Undergraduate Admission seeking comment for this article. No spokesperson was made available during the course of the week to answer questions.

James Chen July 16, 2012 at 08:18 PM
Stanford or Berkeley is not a plan!
AAAO July 18, 2012 at 02:35 PM
Why is PA Patch giving these two private consultants free advertising to get more clients from the area? Services like this fuel the "admissions arms race!" It's like a competition to see who can charge the most hourly rates! I used to work for admissions as well, and I think these services just stress out families more! http://asianameducation.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/palo-alto-patch-aids-private-admissions-consultants-advertise-services-ugh/
Marci Reichelstein July 20, 2012 at 07:59 PM
As one of the sources for this article, I would like to comment that information given during the source interview was misreported and also quoted out of context. Quotes such as the faculty student “x-factor” boost and “informal agreements between large donors and the admissions department” were not made by me. The overall thrust of the information I provided was that, rather, I believe high school years are best used for the exploration of, and deepening involvement in, a student’s academic and life interests. It is through this purposeful engagement that students learn more about what intrigues them and what their unique talents are. With this self-knowledge comes a greater belief in themselves and how they can influence their world. This is the best path to help students clarify passions, values and life goals. This is the best way students prepare themselves to select colleges that offer the best qualities and programs to help them reach their fullest potential. - Marci Reichelstein
Adam Swart July 23, 2012 at 09:54 PM
I was recently advised of Marci's comment regarding this article. Though I rarely get involved in this type of matter, I do feel the need to respond to her erroneous assertions. After I asked Marci about faculty admissions vs. legacy admissions, she mentioned that those groups were treated very differently. She then proceeded to tell me that the admissions rate for the faculty group was far higher. When I asked how much higher, she stated, “We’re not talking just a boost like a 6.6 percent to 15 percent, we’re talking a multiple or ‘x-factor boost,’”. I took down the exact quote in my notebook, knowing it was an important piece of information. The paraphrased comment about informal arrangements being made between the admissions department and top donors was a result of her contention that deals between those groups are made "informally with a handshake". In the interests of transparency, I have taken a photo of the specific page of my notebook where notes from the interview were taken. If anyone wishes to see the notes, please email me at adam.swart@patch.com. That goes for Marci as well. Reporters are not PR agents for their sources. We decide what angle to pursue in stories, and encourage sources to reveal truthful information that they may not intend to reveal. I understand the 'inside-info' Marci revealed may make for some awkward interactions at Stanford, but she should have considered that before revealing privileged information to a reporter.
Mark Weiss August 08, 2012 at 02:45 PM
I wrote a story like this in 1982 interviewing for Gunn High Oracle Fred Hargadon, then dean of admissions at Stanford, and at that time they claimed, plausibly that due to high volumes of admissions they did not do special sorts. Jacques Steinberg of New York Times has a good book on college admissions

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something