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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Go California!!

[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?

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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?

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

[Anonymous]

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.

Doesn't seem very christian.

[Anonymous]

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.

Doesn't seem very christian.

NP-The clown car has arrived.

[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'm not worried about that and don't think it's overreaching since CA government does provide some state benefits to private colleges. But even if they didn't, it feels warranted.

Also, legacy boosts have come under fire and feel more icky than affirmative action, which has now been struck down. There is no way legacy can remain at private colleges that want to attract progressive, egalitarian students including diverse students. Legacy is one of the most obvious bastions of prejudice (i.e. students whose parents went to top colleges can make it easier for their kids to take a spot).

[Anonymous]

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--wasn't that the era when they looked for the "all around" candidates, meaning they were supposedly not "grinds"? It played on Jewish stereotypes of the era.

[Anonymous]

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.

I think it's good for USC's reputation. They have spent several decades now trying to boost their academic reputation for undergraduates. They have mostly succeeded. People are less likely to think of it as the university of spoiled children. It has come a long way. This will help strengthen their reputation in the long run.

[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 agree. I am uncomfortable about this new reach.

[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?.

Yes

Agree.

And let’s not forget that this alumni giving funds huge endowments that fund financial aid. This will be a huge unintended consequence. And I had no skin in game. My kids did not want to go where I went. And yes I have decreased my giving.

[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.

I think it's good for USC's reputation. They have spent several decades now trying to boost their academic reputation for undergraduates. They have mostly succeeded. People are less likely to think of it as the university of spoiled children. It has come a long way. This will help strengthen their reputation in the long run.

It has come a long way, but don’t be fooled - USC still has a large wealthy population. I think it will continue to recruit and accept wealthy students, even as it opens its doors to underprivileged students. The middle students will be done - just like everywhere else.