CA Governor signs bill to ban all legacy admissions at private CA colleges (USC, Stanford, Santa Clara, etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Why would an alumn give money to his/her school if there is no way it will help your child even in some small way don’t the road? Isn’t this going to kill alumni giving?.

Ask Amherst. I’ve also been curious about this.

Ask JHU.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rinatorchinsky/2023/08/28/kids-of-alumni-get-special-treatment-at-80-of-americas-top-private-colleges/

In fact, [Johns] Hopkins’ Phillips says the university did not see a decline in donations after removing legacy consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Why would an alumn give money to his/her school if there is no way it will help your child even in some small way don’t the road? Isn’t this going to kill alumni giving?.

Ask Amherst. I’ve also been curious about this.

Okay now I was curious so I went back and looked….Amherst eliminated legacy in 2021
In 2020 annual fund donations were a little over 11M with 44% participation. Looks like FY18 were 10.7M
For FY24, annual fund donations were 9.1M with 35% participation.
So looks like a relatively small decrease — total operating expenses for the year are over 200M so alumni donations seem to be a relatively small percentage (although maybe the big donations go into a different bucket?).
TLDR: the schools have such large endowments that they don’t actually care about the alumni donations that much.

First of all, an 18% decrease in annual fund donations is not "relatively small." In fact, with inflation, it's actually a 19% decrease. That is a lot. When you consider just that bucket makes up 5% of it's annual operating budget, that is not insignificant. And you're right, that doesn't include most of where legacy giving is likely going, such as athletics and of course, planned giving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for Phil Ting for carrying this legislation, CA voters for voting for it, and Gov Newsom for signing it. USC (which has the highest number of legacy admissions, followed by Stanford) said they would comply with the new law.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/california-bans-legacy-admissions-colleges-00181655

USC and Stanford will comply.

It will be embarrassing to be the lone private institution in CA not complying with the law.

It is really a stupid law.

No one cares if a walmart grandkid gets a spot as long as the walmart offspring donates a new gym to their alma mater.

Once again, California leads the way on stupid.

The WalMart grandkids are still getting in because of the building donation. Legacy status is irrelevant to that.

Regular legacy kids don’t get that much of a boost these days.

They certainly do at the California schools impacted.

I’m in California and know several kids who have gone to Stanford. I don’t know a single kid in the past years who hasn’t been legacy, faculty kid, or recruited athlete. Literally out of the kids I know, none fall outside those categories. And that’s what other people I know say as well. Legacy, especially double legacy, is hugely impactful.

[Anonymous]

I think this prospect is amazing. Local private schools better be ready to quit boasting about their stellar college placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our family is not a big donor, so really no skin in the game. That said, is any one concerned states are overreaching into private schools?

How can a state mandate a private universities admissions process? What’s next? Making private universities be non-religious? Or making sure a private school accepts so many first gen students?

This.

This is huge overreach by the state and social engineering in a private entity.

A private entity that gets tax exemption status and government funds.

All non-profits are tax exempt. Is that really our criteria?

Feds to the [___] art museum: Starting today, you may no longer "reward" big donors -- including donors who gave you painting -- by gifting them hard-to-get tickets for hot special exhibits like the Impressionists.

Why: "it's not fair. Because too many white people, and a smattering of Asians. They're overrepresented in the museum donor class and, since we know how to run your non-profit better than you do, we insist you privilege more Black people or poors when it comes to deciding who gets to see the Impressionist exhibit. "

Repeat with every single non-profit you can think of. The Cub Scouts, Girls on the Run, the Leukemia Walk on the Mall, Sons of Italy ... come to think of it, the Sons of Italy have waaaay too many men. And just about all of them are white.

I will go propose some targeted legislation !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our family is not a big donor, so really no skin in the game. That said, is any one concerned states are overreaching into private schools?

How can a state mandate a private universities admissions process? What’s next? Making private universities be non-religious? Or making sure a private school accepts so many first gen students?

I don’t think it can. Seems legally suspect.That being said, I selfishly hope CT passes it soon so that Yale has to get rid of legacy preference!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our family is not a big donor, so really no skin in the game. That said, is any one concerned states are overreaching into private schools?

How can a state mandate a private universities admissions process? What’s next? Making private universities be non-religious? Or making sure a private school accepts so many first gen students?

This.

This is huge overreach by the state and social engineering in a private entity.

A private entity that gets tax exemption status and government funds.

All non-profits are tax exempt. Is that really our criteria?

Feds to the [___] art museum: Starting today, you may no longer "reward" big donors -- including donors who gave you painting -- by gifting them hard-to-get tickets for hot special exhibits like the Impressionists.

Why: "it's not fair. Because too many white people, and a smattering of Asians. They're overrepresented in the museum donor class and, since we know how to run your non-profit better than you do, we insist you privilege more Black people or poors when it comes to deciding who gets to see the Impressionist exhibit. "

Repeat with every single non-profit you can think of. The Cub Scouts, Girls on the Run, the Leukemia Walk on the Mall, Sons of Italy ... come to think of it, the Sons of Italy have waaaay too many men. And just about all of them are white.

I will go propose some targeted legislation !

DP. ALL non-human entities should be tax exempt for the first 7 years of their existence. After that, they ALL need to pay taxes. If you haven't figured out how to run a business (and yes, all of these fuc**rs hiding behind the non profit BS ARE businesses) by then, time to shut down. This should to all businesses, churches, hospitals, colleges and whatnot.. And oh, they should also pay taxes on worldwide income and not just US income much like we lowly humans do. If cost of their services goes up, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Does this mean that USC and Stanford can no longer flag "development" students in admission (i.e., rich kids whose parents can donate $10M+)?

[Anonymous]

There are so, so many bitter and sour grapes kids and their parents on this thread.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, you're still not getting in. Yale not immediately ushering in the triple legacy applicant upcoming in 2028 doesn't clear the decks for you.

And your envy is nonproductive and ugly

[Anonymous]

Fewer donations from alum for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our family is not a big donor, so really no skin in the game. That said, is any one concerned states are overreaching into private schools?

How can a state mandate a private universities admissions process? What’s next? Making private universities be non-religious? Or making sure a private school accepts so many first gen students?

This.

This is huge overreach by the state and social engineering in a private entity.

A private entity that gets tax exemption status and government funds.

All non-profits are tax exempt. Is that really our criteria?

Feds to the [___] art museum: Starting today, you may no longer "reward" big donors -- including donors who gave you painting -- by gifting them hard-to-get tickets for hot special exhibits like the Impressionists.

Why: "it's not fair. Because too many white people, and a smattering of Asians. They're overrepresented in the museum donor class and, since we know how to run your non-profit better than you do, we insist you privilege more Black people or poors when it comes to deciding who gets to see the Impressionist exhibit. "

Repeat with every single non-profit you can think of. The Cub Scouts, Girls on the Run, the Leukemia Walk on the Mall, Sons of Italy ... come to think of it, the Sons of Italy have waaaay too many men. And just about all of them are white.

I will go propose some targeted legislation !

Do museum donors expect their kids to get some special consideration? Ridiculous comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so, so many bitter and sour grapes kids and their parents on this thread.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, you're still not getting in. Yale not immediately ushering in the triple legacy applicant upcoming in 2028 doesn't clear the decks for you.

And your envy is nonproductive and ugly

No dog in this fight. My kid is definitely not an Ivy+ quality kid but legacies are inherently unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so, so many bitter and sour grapes kids and their parents on this thread.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, you're still not getting in. Yale not immediately ushering in the triple legacy applicant upcoming in 2028 doesn't clear the decks for you.

And your envy is nonproductive and ugly

No dog in this fight. My kid is definitely not an Ivy+ quality kid but legacies are inherently unfair.

And? Did not your mama start telling you when you were 3, and your 7 yr old brother got to stay up later that life is, in fact, unfair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our family is not a big donor, so really no skin in the game. That said, is any one concerned states are overreaching into private schools?

How can a state mandate a private universities admissions process? What’s next? Making private universities be non-religious? Or making sure a private school accepts so many first gen students?

This.

This is huge overreach by the state and social engineering in a private entity.

A private entity that gets tax exemption status and government funds.

All non-profits are tax exempt. Is that really our criteria?

Feds to the [___] art museum: Starting today, you may no longer "reward" big donors -- including donors who gave you painting -- by gifting them hard-to-get tickets for hot special exhibits like the Impressionists.

Why: "it's not fair. Because too many white people, and a smattering of Asians. They're overrepresented in the museum donor class and, since we know how to run your non-profit better than you do, we insist you privilege more Black people or poors when it comes to deciding who gets to see the Impressionist exhibit. "

Repeat with every single non-profit you can think of. The Cub Scouts, Girls on the Run, the Leukemia Walk on the Mall, Sons of Italy ... come to think of it, the Sons of Italy have waaaay too many men. And just about all of them are white.

I will go propose some targeted legislation !

Do museum donors expect their kids to get some special consideration? Ridiculous comparison.

It's a solid logical hypothetical. Museum donors expect something in return. Since you're so literal, let's say they expect impossible-to-get tickets for their young adult kids. But wait, here comes California telling the Getty Center that they can't do that. Because so unfair!

Their kids already have so much. So legislators in Sacramento have decided they the Getty can dole out prizes, but the legislators are gonna tell them the parameters of who gets the prizes. Nevermind that the Getty wasn't violating the Constitution (as it would be if it only gave tickets to white people, or heterosexual people)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean that USC and Stanford can no longer flag "development" students in admission (i.e., rich kids whose parents can donate $10M+)?

Oh no. Those kids still have admissions tickets.