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

[Anonymous]

I don't think this will change the incoming class that much. A lot of legacy kids are good students. If two parents went to Stanford, the odds of them having a bright kid are high. Plus, they will most likely have the resources for education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this will change the incoming class that much. A lot of legacy kids are good students. If two parents went to Stanford, the odds of them having a bright kid are high. Plus, they will most likely have the resources for education.

At Stanford, this is going to change a lot. Legacy is huge with Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see this surviving a lawsuit.

Do you even have a theory for why it wouldn't survive a lawsuit?

A private school that has a religious affiliation could say that legacy admission preference is a conditionally protected religious practice. They will win this case given the current composition of SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, my class of 1988 at Stanford was probably at least a third "diverse." That was A LOT given the population then.

[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

Are you in favor of banning legacies or opposed? This seems ridiculously dramatic but I can’t figure out what side your drama is coming from.

I am merely observing that 80% of the posts on this thread are downright gleeful. Borderline Schadenfreude even.

HA! Now you overly privileged lucky people will have one less thing you can count on! Take that!

[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?.

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

That’s… sad. My alma mater is MIT* and I give because it’s a great school doing great things. And I also donate to various scholarship funds.

* MIT has not factored in legacy for years

[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?.

Yes

Doesn't seerm to slow down the giving from MIT alum. But MIT alums tend to believe in merit more than others.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like I said, I'm trying hard to think of a school in a red state where anyone here would even care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this will change the incoming class that much. A lot of legacy kids are good students. If two parents went to Stanford, the odds of them having a bright kid are high. Plus, they will most likely have the resources for education.

At Stanford, this is going to change a lot. Legacy is huge with Stanford.

Yup. Look at the social media of kids of tech billionaires at Stanford. Very little studying is happening. They are jetting off to a new hot spot every weekend of the school year. It's crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this will change the incoming class that much. A lot of legacy kids are good students. If two parents went to Stanford, the odds of them having a bright kid are high. Plus, they will most likely have the resources for education.

Espenshade at Princeton showed that as legacy preference was similar to racial preferences for hispanics and amounted to a 160 pt. bonus on the SAT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences#cite_note-36

The harvard case showed a large admissions advantage especially for more competitive students.
If you had good grades, SAT and extracurriculars, being a legacy was a pretty large distinguishing factor that gave you a fairly large advantage over a non-legacy applicant with the same stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see this surviving a lawsuit.

Do you even have a theory for why it wouldn't survive a lawsuit?

A private school that has a religious affiliation could say that legacy admission preference is a conditionally protected religious practice. They will win this case given the current composition of SCOTUS.

How the heck is legacy preferences a religious practice?
You also can't discriminate on the basis of religion.
This is stupid.

Legacy preferences should go just like racial preferences.

[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?.

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

That’s… sad. My alma mater is MIT* and I give because it’s a great school doing great things. And I also donate to various scholarship funds.

* MIT has not factored in legacy for years

[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?.

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

That’s… sad. My alma mater is MIT* and I give because it’s a great school doing great things. And I also donate to various scholarship funds.

* MIT has not factored in legacy for years

This is just a gut feeling but I think giving would drop if they started giving legacy preferences.
If for no other reason than because it transforms the relationship with alumni from emotional to transactional.
Many alumni would stop giving once their kids got into college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are you in favor of banning legacies or opposed? This seems ridiculously dramatic but I can’t figure out what side your drama is coming from.

I am merely observing that 80% of the posts on this thread are downright gleeful. Borderline Schadenfreude even.

HA! Now you overly privileged lucky people will have one less thing you can count on! Take that!

It's not envy to see an an injustice remedied. Legacy preferences are unjust.

[Anonymous]

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?.

Yes

Doesn't seerm to slow down the giving from MIT alum. But MIT alums tend to believe in merit more than others.

+1

I'm an alum of a California private school (not USC or Stanford). I'm not a mega-donor, no expectation of my name on a building or anything, but I give what I can. This change will not affect my giving whatsoever.

Why? Because as a student, I benefited from an alumni-funded grant and scholarship program. Because of those grants and scholarships, plus work study and my parents contributing what they could, I graduated with exactly $500 in school loans. I'd have been much more in debt without those alumni.

So now I give directly to that same alumni- funded grant and scholarship program, plus to some other earmarked programs that interest me. My own kids will probably not benefit from them, and that's ok. They benefit from what I do for them here in our house. Maybe one day I'll hire someone from the programs I helped fund- that would be really neat. Even if it's not my own kids (who will be fine charting their own paths).