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

[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?

If they don't want to make it fair then they are free to not accept government funds, and also not get tax exemptions.

Yeah! Strong-arming a non-profit — which hasn't violated the Constitution mind you — for their own pet cause !

They should probably make sure no travel sports teams give a boost to the coach’s kid. Maybe decree that 1/2 of any ballet company operating in the state not favor the able bodied and instead hire 25% of dancers who use wheechairs. Because what an egalitarian idea.

DP.

The difference is that legacy preferences are unearned preferences. Noone is saying they have to accept less qualified kids in wheelchairs, in fact they are saying they cannot accept a less qualified kid just because his parents went there. This is a move towards meritocracy not towards equity.

The same people that defended affirmative action must be defending legacy because they are using the same half baked arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if the legacy acceptance rate is, say, 2-3x higher than regular admissions (4%) that's still just 8-12% acceptance rate. Legacy applicants are getting rejected in droves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big whoop over nothing. Just being a legacy gives you precisely nothing unless you have something else to go with it, whether athletic, diverse, from sparse country, financially underprivileged, huge donor, etc. Tempest in a teapot.

This is not true. Depending on the school, legacy ED frequently made a difference.

[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?

If they don't want to make it fair then they are free to not accept government funds, and also not get tax exemptions.

Yeah! Strong-arming a non-profit — which hasn't violated the Constitution mind you — for their own pet cause !

They should probably make sure no travel sports teams give a boost to the coach’s kid. Maybe decree that 1/2 of any ballet company operating in the state not favor the able bodied and instead hire 25% of dancers who use wheechairs. Because what an egalitarian idea.

DP.

The difference is that legacy preferences are unearned preferences. Noone is saying they have to accept less qualified kids in wheelchairs, in fact they are saying they cannot accept a less qualified kid just because his parents went there. This is a move towards meritocracy not towards equity.

The same people that defended affirmative action must be defending legacy because they are using the same half baked arguments.

I don't think legacy admissions is "fair" but I also don't think that private universities should be told who they can or cannot admit (outside discrimination).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MD and CA have both banned legacy at all public and private colleges.

Will CT be next? I think I read there is a bill that is under review. I know Wesleyan already abandoned legacy, but that would affect Yale.

MA - looking at you! (i know BU already got rid of legacy.)

Writing is on the wall. Legacy is definitely on its way out more places soon.

Seems unnecessary to ban legacy admissions in MD. There's only one elite university in the state, and most of the people who went there are not exactly rah rah types who would pump up their kids to go there.

If a school prioritizes legacy and they tell people that -- then they should be able to do it. They should be able to build their class how they want. It would be fine with me if half the slots at a school were legacy if that is what the school wanted. Their is no right to college.

Yep, these are the same folks that defended affirmative action, AKA racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big whoop over nothing. Just being a legacy gives you precisely nothing unless you have something else to go with it, whether athletic, diverse, from sparse country, financially underprivileged, huge donor, etc. Tempest in a teapot.

This is not true. Depending on the school, legacy ED frequently made a difference.

A difference? Sure.

A big difference? No, not when acceptances rates are so low.

[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?

If they don't want to make it fair then they are free to not accept government funds, and also not get tax exemptions.

Yeah! Strong-arming a non-profit — which hasn't violated the Constitution mind you — for their own pet cause !

They should probably make sure no travel sports teams give a boost to the coach’s kid. Maybe decree that 1/2 of any ballet company operating in the state not favor the able bodied and instead hire 25% of dancers who use wheechairs. Because what an egalitarian idea.

It's refreshing to see a post that highlights logic over emotion. Very rare here.

Except it's not very logical. California isn't saying they have to give wheelchair bound students an unearned preference, they are saying they cannot give legacies an unearned preference.

[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?

If they like money grabbing, then forget non-profit benefits and go for-profit.

In other words you have no idea how nonprofits function. Nonprofits do not make a profit on the public good they perform, and so they rely entirely on grants and donations, mostly from private entities, like alumni and their companies. Denying legacy admission, which is a legitimate way to cultivate donors, will handicap colleges fundraising abilities significantly and thus make the cost of attending higher and the quality of the education experience lower at most colleges. If every college were for profit, the product would be compromised and the price too high.

The degree of ridiculousness here is that they have created a double whammy -- you cannot intentionally create a diverse class, and you cannot admit the legacy students of your diverse alumni. We are quickly headed to private education for the rich majority only.

(Also, I am not a donor and my kids are done with the process (and could not apply to my alma mater anyway), so no personal stake in this issue other than the greater good of higher education generally, and an interest in constitutional law).

People keep bringing up the constitution. Why?

MIT never had a legacy preference and their endowment is the 6th highest in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is great.

Even if this gets appealed down the line, it is now against the zeitgeist to have legacy admissions. Tide is turning and will turn elsewhere too.

Now that there have been more diverse admissions for decades, legacy doesn’t carry the weight anymore.

Admissions have all the tools to identify connected families, from expensive sports to social networks, that relying on “legacy” isn’t even needed anymore.

Read up on how they started promoting athletics when Jewish students started earning admissions on academic achievement.

Right of course legacy admissions are banned just as the pool of legacies is more diverse than ever.

This is what is absolutely insidious about the whole game. I have to believe this is by design.

Look at the class of 1990s at any selective school. They're pretty white.

It's because people only think of "legacy" as rich white people. It's a very emotional and close-minded way of thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad my kid's first choice/legacy school is in a red state. Doubt legacy admissions will ever be banned there and the school has already doubled down and announced that legacy admissions are staying.

YAY your state's schools will continue to favor less qualified legacies over kids with higher stats. Way to go! Bring on the good old boys network /s

But the stats, the stats, the stats! Thank goodness the stats obsessed do not run our universities. They would be wasteland of one-dimensional strivers with zero social skills or emotional intelligence. Not a campus most vibrant, multi-dimensional kids want to be on.

Yep the same people defending racial discrimination in college admissions are defending legacy admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should ban geographic admission preferences first gen student preferences, and low income student preferences. No reason to give them an undeserved leg up either. Make it completely merit based and stop admitting people for things that have nothing to do with academic ability.

Economic mobility is a legitimate non-profit motive and charitable purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The law bans donor precerences as well.

If the family is well known enough that the admissions committee recognizes the name it won’t matter. They can still consider it unofficially without explicitly leaving any evidence that would require reporting.

They should get rid of the names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy was bound to crumble after affirmative action for diversity was struck down.

Another predictable impact of the SCOTUS ruling.

yeah I expect legacy will be done for most US colleges in the next 5 years (maybe except Notre Dame lol).

There will be a lawsuit over a religious school regarding a legacy admission ban. The school will go all the way to SCOTUS and the court will decide that legacy admission preferences are a constitutionally protected ( for religiously affiliated private schools) and possibly for non religiously affiliated private schools.

On what theory?

[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?

If they don't want to make it fair then they are free to not accept government funds, and also not get tax exemptions.

Yeah! Strong-arming a non-profit — which hasn't violated the Constitution mind you — for their own pet cause !

They should probably make sure no travel sports teams give a boost to the coach’s kid. Maybe decree that 1/2 of any ballet company operating in the state not favor the able bodied and instead hire 25% of dancers who use wheechairs. Because what an egalitarian idea.

DP.

The difference is that legacy preferences are unearned preferences. Noone is saying they have to accept less qualified kids in wheelchairs, in fact they are saying they cannot accept a less qualified kid just because his parents went there. This is a move towards meritocracy not towards equity.

The same people that defended affirmative action must be defending legacy because they are using the same half baked arguments.

I don't think legacy admissions is "fair" but I also don't think that private universities should be told who they can or cannot admit (outside discrimination).

They are a non-profit and donations to them are tax deductible. That donation is not supposed to be in exchange for any consideration. Giving your kids a preference in admissions is consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?.

Plus how can the state mandate what private schools do?

I only have to my Alma mater in hopes of my kids getting admitted. Otherwise I’d rather donate to help local kids get thru hs and into college, not help an elite university with funding

i

California underwrites need based scholarships for instate students - they can pull that funding.

Pell grant funding? Please explain. If so, it’s less than it’s ever been. USC has a robust endowment.

If USC has such a robust endowment then legacy donations really shouldn't matter.

Plus, it's a bad look for USC and Stanford, in a very liberal state.

I guess conservatives care about elitism and hoarding opportunities.

It's not conservatives that are whining about this. It's the entitled liberals that are whining, conservatives barely believe in college anymore and the ones that do want their kids to get an engineering degree at a state school or something.

Well a pp stated that they are glad they live in a red state where they would not ban legacy, not that there are many private colleges in red states that most people would consider elite.