That’d be a surprisingly different practice relative to, say, Harvard. I would be interested to learn what “form” this encouragement comes in, and whether it is maybe more related to one’s status as a donor?
I’m a moderate fan of a small ‘tip’ for legacy applicants when there is truly a tie (and especially when it’s a tie with some kid who is a legacy of yet another top school), and generally against it (or donor benefits) otherwise.
Maybe Stanford is just a little more… nouveau or arriviste? 
Here is one example: At the reunions that happen at the point where folks are starting to have high school age kids, family campus tours are organized as part of the reunion for returning families. The benefits (and limitations) of legacy are discussed. I assure you it has nothing to do with donor status.
I can also say that when I arrived on campus as a grad student, the president of the university and others made a big deal of welcoming us to the university family rather than simply to our program or school. While I am sure this has benefits beyond education, this “un-siloing” was very much a part of the ethos (even then). And I think I did feel more connected to the university than folks I knew in programs elsewhere. Sure, just one person’s story…
I will also say, although this is only anecdotal, that the legacy kids I have seen admitted were (and remain) pretty wow. Again, just one reference point. But to your point, promising a second read as protection against a grumpy reader – it’s not a gigantic edge!
I live in general vicinity of Stanford, in a neighborhood, where many Stanford alums and employees live. I workout and play basketball with both employees and alums of Stanford. And I’ve been through two cycles of admissions with accompanying Naviance data from our local public school, where both my kids attended. I also work with a Stanford alum.
Here’s my opinion. Whether legacy, recruited athlete (obvious) and/or employee of Stanford (MD, PhD and other), the record of admissions to Stanford, in terms of their kids, in every case that I’m familiar with is 100%, the student was admitted to Stanford.
Thanks. I hadn’t really given much consideration in the past to the different “kinds” of graduate-level students but more typically thought of just two buckets: kids who went to the undergrad school (a particular collection of kids with a particular set of experiences), and those who went to one of the University’s “professional” graduate schools, like Law or GSB or Medicine. I’ve always thought this latter group is different in kind, and should have more affinity for their graduate school than the “University,” – I candidly think a GSB grad should wear a GSB sweatshirt and not, say, a generic Stanford sweatshirt.
But I guess there’s a third group, too, people who were graduate students in various university programs, like PhD students in History or Physics or whatever, that are in many instances more ‘academic’ and super-highly selective, maybe were TAs and spent a lot more time in the ‘university’ environment than in the professional schools. I think for this group (yes, one person’s opinion), it makes sense to wrap them more closely in the University fold, and I could see including them in the “tip” category for future legacies.
To the OPs point, though, I have no idea how these designations vary in their various admit rates, and I’m unaware of any real data on the topic.
We know an extended family with multiple legacy ties. Two girls, cousins, applied REA. Both very good, not stellar qualifications. One deferred, one denied outright. The one deferred has parents who are active alumni, interviewing, hosting local events but are not big donors. The family of the second girl is not active, not a big donor.
The only kid I’ve known from around our area who got accepted was a double-legacy (both parents undergrad - one of whom was relatively high profile.) She was a top numerical stats kid as well - and super nice! - but didn’t have the kind of extra wow factor (or recruited status herself) that seems to otherwise be required for kids in our area to get accepted to ultra-low admit rate schools.
Add that to the anecdotal pile for whatever it’s worth!
My kid’s high school wasn’t big on applying to very low acceptance colleges. Of 940 students in a graduating class, maybe 20-25 would apply to Stanford and another 20-25 to Harvard, while most of the rest got fewer than 15. Maybe 1 would be accepted, though in the year my kid was applying, 3 were accepted. Moreover, the character of the school district was that it is frowned upon to boast about acceptances to “elite” colleges, so unless I know the kid’s family personally, I wouldn’t know much. SO I can’t say much about most of the kids who are accepted to Stanford.
I am sort of familiar with one of the3 kids form my kid’s year - they were a 4.0 student who was also a top violin player and a varsity tennis player (their partner for doubles was recruited by a top D3 college). So high achievements in music, sports, and academics, similar to the students who come here, and then report that they were accepted (most of them). They weren’t a legacy, though. I have no idea who the other two kids are.
OS. The exception to the “not many applying to elite colleges with very low acceptance rates” are the Midwestern ones (like U Chicago and NWU).
At my kid’s school, the kids who got into Stanford were all non-legacy. And all but 1 chose either Harvard or MIT instead! Imagine!!
There’s a strong regional bias to yield.
We live in MA and my kids attended the highly regarded local public school. For students that got into both Stanford and Harvard or MIT, almost all chose the local option. Until recently, Stanford’s yield rate from our school was about 20%, although it has ticked up in the last few years.
I agree. The year my D18 graduated HS, one student was accepted to those same 3 schools, MIT, Harvard and Stanford. She chose Stanford. As I mentioned above, we live nearby Stanford.
Agreed. Many kids in my D’s school (based in NJ) get accepted into T20s and there’s a strong bias to going to the east coast schools vs Stanford, Caltech or the UCs.
Absolutely. Our kids rarely even apply to Coastal schools, preferring schools in the Midwest.
I think that regional bias is even stronger for smaller colleges, at least among private colleges. The biggest regional bias is, of course, among state schools.
PS. Although we talk about how East Coasters dislike their in-state selections, UConn is 77% CT residents, and Rutgers (NB) is 81% NJ residents, which is pretty high.
Well, way back when, Stanford was essentially a regional school! In fact, created for that purpose.
And those NESCAC schools were filled with New Englanders.
I think that many schools, recognizing shifting demographics and the risk of being tied to one region, have invested heavily in making themselves known and attractive to students outside their region.
But we digress from the OP’S question.
Perhaps the poster meant “Imagine!” As in “imagine those amazing choices!”
We are in the Midwest and the traditional Ivies, especially HPY, have far more luster than Stanford to the typical applicant.
East Coast is closer, and distance is a serious consideration for many parents and kids.
A flight from, say, Chicago to Cornell (most isolated Ivy) is around 3.5 hours, while to Stanford its 4.5 hours. However, a road trip from Chicago to Cornell in 10 hours, which is doable for taking a kid and their luggage. On the other hand, a road trip to Stanford would be 32 hours, which is not.
I think that for an unhooked candidate the best way to increase your odds of acceptance to Stanford is to play an instrument.
Especially if the instrument is a tuba.
Sorry, couldn’t resist…
That’s where we goofed!
Our three were classical violinists!
Tuba for the grandkids, it is! The GK’s would be non-legacy.
(no, no tiger Mom or Dad here!)
Doesn’t that mean the minimum academic standard is too low? Why shouldn’t they raise it instead?
I have always found that to be a bit of a disingenuous “standard” put forth by elites (not just Stanford). They like to brag about the quality of their whole applicant pool. When they say “80% are fully academically qualified”, it means applicants who are capable of passing and obtaining a degree. The standard can be as low as that of the minimum academic qualification that they set for their recruited athletes. That academic standard is not how they set the bar for non-athletes.