Bill banning legacy admissions in all California colleges and universities passes Assembly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.[b]

Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies

yup. end of private financial aid at Ca privates. And tuition will be hiked over $100k per year next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 This mostly affects Stanford and USC. Sorry rich white people! Your affirmative action is ending in California.

Stanford is 21% white, and 26% Asian.

Compared to 35% of California's population overall being white.

https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/freshmen-class-profile/

+1. Truth! Schools have gone too far and that includes Princeton

They've gone too far because they're accepting the best candidates according to merit? My my, how people who whined incessantly about getting rid of affirmative action are changing their tunes now that college admissions are getting much more competitive for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's great. Hope this happens in the rest of the country as well.

The irony is that donations to these private campuses would not exist if not for some kind of implied payback in the form of legacy admissions. Like all sought-after recruits (including first gen students and URMs), even legacies have to meet a certain minimum standard—but to say that legacies should not get a preferred look is to ignore the “known” factor that they bring to the table. Take Yale for example….Legacy status tells the school “this family knows what it takes to be a Bulldog and will have the family’s support to accept admission (yield), succeed as a student, and carry on the school’s esteemed legacy” ….and that’s a nice safe bet for a school.
The other thing it does is reward its donors. And these schools desperately need donors.

The blue haired burn-it-all-down egalitarian protest crowd is going to learn soon enough that they can’t have nice things without donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 This mostly affects Stanford and USC. Sorry rich white people! Your affirmative action is ending in California.

Stanford is 21% white, and 26% Asian.

Compared to 35% of California's population overall being white.

https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/freshmen-class-profile/

+1. Truth! Schools have gone too far and that includes Princeton

They've gone too far because they're accepting the best candidates according to merit? My my, how people who whined incessantly about getting rid of affirmative action are changing their tunes now that college admissions are getting much more competitive for them.

uh, no, that's not what I mean at all and you know it. Fortinately schools are now looking at stats and realize that selection based upon test-optional and race didn't work out the way thet had hoped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WHAT THERE WERE PEOPLE STRONGLY CLAIMING THAT PRIVATE COLLEGES CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO SINCE THEY ARE PRIVATE

Racial discrimination is banned and now legacy is banned.
Progress

+1. Private colleges are still living off our dime by not paying any taxes, in many cases also get government funding for research, and federal student loans for their students to milk their students of money. They cannot and should not be able to do whatever they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great. Hope this happens in the rest of the country as well.

The irony is that donations to these private campuses would not exist if not for some kind of implied payback in the form of legacy admissions. Like all sought-after recruits (including first gen students and URMs), even legacies have to meet a certain minimum standard—but to say that legacies should not get a preferred look is to ignore the “known” factor that they bring to the table. Take Yale for example….Legacy status tells the school “this family knows what it takes to be a Bulldog and will have the family’s support to accept admission (yield), succeed as a student, and carry on the school’s esteemed legacy” ….and that’s a nice safe bet for a school.
The other thing it does is reward its donors. And these schools desperately need donors.

The blue haired burn-it-all-down egalitarian protest crowd is going to learn soon enough that they can’t have nice things without donors.

What a bunch of crap. There's no guarantee that a legacy student will "carry on the school's esteemed legacy." When I think back to my undergraduate Ivy league degree, some of the students who stand out to me as being particularly among the poorest performers in my classes were legacies and recruited athletes, and those legacies have not been standouts in their careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.

Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies

No one gives money just so they can get a seat. Most donors are megalomaniacs who like to die happy that their name will live on for posterity on the face of a building or some such. Donations will not stop.

Your argument is similar to the anti-tax people make. OMG, rich people will leave if you raise taxes too much. Guess what, we did have high taxes and everyone was fine and happy back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.

Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies

No one gives money just so they can get a seat. Most donors are megalomaniacs who like to die happy that their name will live on for posterity on the face of a building or some such. Donations will not stop.

Your argument is similar to the anti-tax people make. OMG, rich people will leave if you raise taxes too much. Guess what, we did have high taxes and everyone was fine and happy back then.

This. The big ticket donations ($20 million+++) that move the needle at elite schools come from those who put their names on buildings/research centers etc. Treating every legacy as a potential cash cow is imprecise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT THERE WERE PEOPLE STRONGLY CLAIMING THAT PRIVATE COLLEGES CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO SINCE THEY ARE PRIVATE

Racial discrimination is banned and now legacy is banned.
Progress

+1. Private colleges are still living off our dime by not paying any taxes, in many cases also get government funding for research, and federal student loans for their students to milk their students of money. They cannot and should not be able to do whatever they want.

err ok but this thread isn't about taxes ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.

Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies

No one gives money just so they can get a seat. Most donors are megalomaniacs who like to die happy that their name will live on for posterity on the face of a building or some such. Donations will not stop.

Your argument is similar to the anti-tax people make. OMG, rich people will leave if you raise taxes too much. Guess what, we did have high taxes and everyone was fine and happy back then.

This. The big ticket donations ($20 million+++) that move the needle at elite schools come from those who put their names on buildings/research centers etc. Treating every legacy as a potential cash cow is imprecise.

utterly false. I'm a Harvard alum. All of us give ONLY to get our kids. (an yes we co
oare figures out to 8 digitd
s). You take that perq away and we go back to funding true charities for the needy

[Anonymous]

excellent news!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:excellent news!

Virginia already did this for publics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.

Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies

No one gives money just so they can get a seat. Most donors are megalomaniacs who like to die happy that their name will live on for posterity on the face of a building or some such. Donations will not stop.

Your argument is similar to the anti-tax people make. OMG, rich people will leave if you raise taxes too much. Guess what, we did have high taxes and everyone was fine and happy back then.

This. The big ticket donations ($20 million+++) that move the needle at elite schools come from those who put their names on buildings/research centers etc. Treating every legacy as a potential cash cow is imprecise.

utterly false. I'm a Harvard alum. All of us give ONLY to get our kids. (an yes we co
oare figures out to 8 digitd
s). You take that perq away and we go back to funding true charities for the needy

And I'm a Princeton alum. I can't actually understand your post since there's some words in there that are definitely not in the English language, but donor data is public and heavily skewed to big ticket donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 This mostly affects Stanford and USC. Sorry rich white people! Your affirmative action is ending in California.

Stanford is 21% white, and 26% Asian.

Compared to 35% of California's population overall being white.

https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/freshmen-class-profile/

20% of the class of 2027 are first generation college students? How can this be real? Are they dumbing down the classes to make sure these students don't drop out or have an amazing support structure to help them catch up? The high school (and earlier) education for a lot of these student must be pretty awful given the terrible public education system in the US.

[Anonymous]

donations dont move the needle for your kid unless it's 10 million plus.