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

[Anonymous]

Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

Those private institutions get tax dollars, both directly and indirectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

I rather have equality and fairness especially in the education field just like everywhere else in the world.

Curious where this “everywhere else in the world” is, where money doesn’t talk?

well, to start, Oxbridge doesn't do legacies.

Well they say they do not that is true. But then why is every artisto kid with a pulse admitted? And they do have donors -- often not from UK -- whose kids go. US colleges are by far the best. [b] Oxbridge does not compare to even a top 50 US at the undergrad level.

? That is absurd.

Money can buy lots of tutors, college essay writers, etc..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bummer deal. I am sure it is these endowments and donations that are paying for my exceptional, poor, white kid's education at his university of this type of a caliber.

Ton of middle class kids also choose publics because of money. Poor White kidswill be fine anywhere.

Except my kid goes to school for free at his school whereas my poorly regarded state school will cost him $12K a year. My earlier point stands where I do not begrudge legacy admissions or admission through donations because it helps my family- which at the end of the day is what we are all seeking to do... forwarding the best interests of our children.

Your kid should get $48k loan like my kid.
Uour kid is not special and no reason to be treated special.

The top universities don't offer loan-based financial aid. It's all grants. And it comes out of the enormous, multi-billion dollar endowments that these schools have. It's not Biff and Buffy that are supporting middle class students at Princeton and similar. It's generations of good investment decisions.

No one should be taking out loans to attend private universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bummer deal. I am sure it is these endowments and donations that are paying for my exceptional, poor, white kid's education at his university of this type of a caliber.

These donations aren't really necessary. Their endowments are so large they can reduce the tuition if they really wanted to, but they don't because they are greedy and think that the $$$ tuition means "prestige".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

Those private institutions get tax dollars, both directly and indirectly.

Federal money, yes. But state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

Those private institutions get tax dollars, both directly and indirectly.

Federal money, yes. But state?

In the form of Cal grants, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bummer deal. I am sure it is these endowments and donations that are paying for my exceptional, poor, white kid's education at his university of this type of a caliber.

Ton of middle class kids also choose publics because of money. Poor White kidswill be fine anywhere.

Except my kid goes to school for free at his school whereas my poorly regarded state school will cost him $12K a year. My earlier point stands where I do not begrudge legacy admissions or admission through donations because it helps my family- which at the end of the day is what we are all seeking to do... forwarding the best interests of our children.

Your kid should get $48k loan like my kid.
Uour kid is not special and no reason to be treated special.

The top universities don't offer loan-based financial aid. It's all grants. And it comes out of the enormous, multi-billion dollar endowments that these schools have. It's not Biff and Buffy that are supporting middle class students at Princeton and similar. It's generations of good investment decisions.

No one should be taking out loans to attend private universities.

WTF are you talking about? You are forced to pay cash??

You don't need to make decisions for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

Those private institutions get tax dollars, both directly and indirectly.

Federal money, yes. But state?

+1 already explained earlier in this thread. The privates receive state funds. If they don't want to follow the law they will have to forfeit the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

??? Private companies are bounded by all sorts of regulations and laws.
Government even breaks apart private companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

Those private institutions get tax dollars, both directly and indirectly.

Federal money, yes. But state?

+1 already explained earlier in this thread. The privates receive state funds. If they don't want to follow the law they will have to forfeit the money.

What state money does Stanford get? Or USC?

Even if they do -- you cannot contition something unrelated to state or federal funds. The condition has to be about the grant of the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

??? Private companies are bounded by all sorts of regulations and laws.
Government even breaks apart private companies.

No not that simple. State and Federal law has to be based on something. State can't tell McDonalds to only serve blueberry pies not apple pies. They have no authority to do that unless they can point to some health and safety issue. Government breaks apart companies because of the antitrust laws.

[Anonymous]

So they didn't ban admissions based on donations, which is what the more significant preference is anyway (ie legacies who are also big donors)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

Those private institutions get tax dollars, both directly and indirectly.

Federal money, yes. But state?

+1 already explained earlier in this thread. The privates receive state funds. If they don't want to follow the law they will have to forfeit the money.

What state money does Stanford get? Or USC?

Even if they do -- you cannot contition something unrelated to state or federal funds. The condition has to be about the grant of the money.

Again, even private companies that actually pay taxes are bounded by all sorts of state and federal regulations and laws. It's easier with educational institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people think this will pass a legal action for the privates? There are limits to state action. They could not pass a valid law that says only serve skim milk. Where does this power come from?

??? Private companies are bounded by all sorts of regulations and laws.
Government even breaks apart private companies.

No not that simple. State and Federal law has to be based on something. State can't tell McDonalds to only serve blueberry pies not apple pies. They have no authority to do that unless they can point to some health and safety issue. Government breaks apart companies because of the antitrust laws.

Yes exactly, government created the antitrust laws. Government can create laws. Makes perfect sense for government to create fair and transparent college admissions laws.