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:

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.

Having a very large cohort of really wealthy kids is part of USC's ethos and it will never ever change. CA can do all of the political grandstanding they want but just as schools threaded the AA needle with "work arounds" this will happen too. They will bide their time until this gets ruled unconstitutional and be right back to square one.

[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.

Totally agree--this gives USC the perfect excuse to increase emphasis on stats and raise themselves in the rankings in the process. They still have one of the strongest alumni networks in the country so I don't think they will be lacking in terms of donations.

[Anonymous]

Legacy preference is illegal ethnic discrimination.
If they want to sell seats, they can sell them fairly on the open market.

[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?

Almost all "private" schools suck hard on the public teat.

[Anonymous]

I don't see this surviving a lawsuit.

[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.

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

[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

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.

Oh no, we'll have to tax the rich.

[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?

This.

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

Totally agree--this gives USC the perfect excuse to increase emphasis on stats and raise themselves in the rankings in the process. They still have one of the strongest alumni networks in the country so I don't think they will be lacking in terms of donations.

Eh if they wanted to emphasize stats, they’d require the SATs. USC is all about connections. It’s the good ol’ boys network of the west.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

When the SCOTUS banned considering race in admissions, some colleges changed supplemental essays as a bit of a work-around ie 'what in a students background, perspective or experience will make them a strong candidate...' type questions.

Curious if there will be supplementals to address legacy? UVA won't consider legacy but still has a question about perspective students UVA connections.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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