Chamath’s prediction was that, after the June 2023 Supreme Court decision ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions, U.S. colleges and universities receiving federal funds would be forced, via lawsuits and legal pressure, to significantly curtail or eliminate both legacy- and athletic-based admissions preferences.

What actually happened by late 2025:

1. Legacy admissions have been reduced, but not eliminated, and mostly not by court rulings.

   • An Education Reform Now (ERN) analysis summarized in Forbes reports that as of 2025 only 24% of four‑year colleges still consider legacy status, down from 49% in 2015, and that 92 colleges dropped legacy preferences after the 2023 affirmative‑action ruling. This shows meaningful decline, but not disappearance. (forbes.com)
   • State legislatures, not federal lawsuits, have been the main source of legal change: by 2024, Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois, and California had enacted bans on legacy admissions in some or all public institutions, with California’s ban extending to private colleges that take certain state aid. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • These laws are geographically limited and do not cover all federally funded institutions. Many private and out‑of‑state universities that receive substantial federal funding still retain legacy preferences.

2. Major elite universities still use legacy preferences and have not been forced by courts to stop.

   • Harvard remains under a pending civil‑rights complaint and U.S. Department of Education investigation alleging that its legacy and donor preferences violate Title VI, but there has been no final ruling or order requiring Harvard to end legacy admissions as of November 2025. (forbes.com)
   • A 2025 Harvard Crimson piece on state efforts to ban legacy admissions notes that Massachusetts has not passed such a ban and Harvard continues to use legacy preferences, underscoring that even the most scrutinized schools have not yet been compelled to end them. (thecrimson.com)
   • In California, rather than abandon legacy preferences, Stanford chose to withdraw from the state’s Cal Grant financial‑aid program so it could keep giving legacy and donor preference while sidestepping the new state ban—the opposite of being forced to drop legacy by law. (sfchronicle.com)
   • An AP report this year notes that roughly 500 U.S. universities, including all Ivy League schools and Stanford, still consider legacy status, and criticizes the Trump administration for focusing on race-based policies while taking no action on legacy admissions. (apnews.com)
   • Together, these facts show: substantial federal funding continues to flow to many institutions that maintain legacy preferences, with no nationwide legal requirement to end them.

3. There has been legal pressure on legacy admissions, but not decisive wins that make them illegal.

   • Civil‑rights groups filed a Title VI complaint against Harvard’s legacy and donor preferences immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, and the Department of Education opened a formal investigation—clear pressure, but not yet a successful lawsuit that forces policy change. (insightintoacademia.com)
   • State bans in a handful of states are legislative actions, not the kind of federal civil‑rights lawsuit victories Chamath described as the mechanism that would make legacy admissions “go away” at federally funded schools. There is still no Supreme Court or federal appellate decision declaring legacy preferences unlawful per se.

4. Athletic‑based admissions preferences have not been significantly curtailed by law.

   • High‑profile college‑sports litigation since 2023 has focused on NIL compensation, revenue sharing, and transfer rules (e.g., Tennessee v. NCAA and House v. NCAA), leading to major changes in how athletes are paid and how they can move between schools. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • These cases do not challenge or eliminate admissions boosts for recruited athletes; they target economic/antitrust issues, not the practice of admitting athletes with lower academic metrics.
   • There is no evidence of a successful post‑2023 lawsuit that directly attacks athletic‑recruit admissions preferences themselves under Title VI or the Equal Protection Clause, nor of universities being ordered to dismantle athletic preferences as a condition of receiving federal funds.

5. Net assessment versus the prediction.

   • Chamath anticipated that, once race‑based affirmative action was struck down, it would be a “pretty quick” next step for lawsuits to succeed against legacy and athletic preferences, effectively forcing their end at federally funded institutions.
   • By late 2025:
     • Legacy admissions are under intense scrutiny and have shrunk meaningfully, but hundreds of federally funded colleges—especially the most elite—still use them, and there is no controlling court decision or federal rule that bans the practice nationwide. (forbes.com)
     • Athletic‑based admissions preferences remain intact and legally unchallenged in any comparable way; the legal action around college sports has been about money and mobility, not admissions hooks. (en.wikipedia.org)

Because the core of the prediction was that legal victories and resulting mandates would make legacy and athletic preferences “go away” at federally funded schools, and that has clearly not occurred by November 2025, the prediction is best classified as wrong, even though parts of the landscape (especially political and reputational pressure on legacy admissions) moved in a direction broadly consistent with his concerns.