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

[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 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).

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

[Anonymous]

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

Another predictable impact of the SCOTUS ruling.

[Anonymous]

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).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can they ban it for private colleges?

I do think legacy preference is unfair, but it’s not unconstitutional.

The original bill pulled state funding for low/middle income students at private institutions. They removed the penalty and amended Education Code Section 66018.4(c), which was about to sunset.

"Starting in mid-2025, all California private institutions must report to the legislature whether they utilized legacy or donor preferences in the preceding academic year. Institutions that did use preferences have an additional requirement to report certain information for all admitted students (legacy/donor status, race, geography, income bracket and athletic status) and the admission rates of students given preference compared to those who did not."

I don't think Stanford or USC will want to disclose other institutional priorities and will follow the law.

So it’s not actually banned?

[Anonymous]

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

Another predictable impact of the SCOTUS ruling.

It won't crumble, just not talked about. They will talk a touchy feely game to make people "feel good" and simply engineer work-arounds just like AA.

[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.

Right, conservatives with opportunity hoarding even as they blast coastal elites.

[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.

+1 there is no shortage of unconnected rich kids with high stats. USC will be fine, financially.

[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?

This.

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

A private entity that gets tax exemption status and government funds.

[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.

? I hope that was sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

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.

I care.
Education opportunity is a very important fundamental foundation and building block of our society and country.
A Walmart grandkid should compete equally and fairly with other kids.

That's more of a latter 20th century concept.

The first public schools only admitted white boys who could pass an exam. Elitism in our schools existed long before we were a country.

I agree that it's unfair, but it's really a modern, progressive concept.

[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?

This.

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

Exactly.

[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?

This.

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

A private entity that gets tax exemption status and government funds.

The State $ likely follows the student right, not the school.

Just what we need is more government over reach. At some point, they will run out of other peoples' money to spend.

[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?

This.

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

A private entity that gets tax exemption status and government funds.

The State $ likely follows the student right, not the school.

Just what we need is more government over reach. At some point, they will run out of other peoples' money to spend.

Well I mean we have a 45B deficit so...