Anonymous wrote:I don't see this surviving a lawsuit.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Anonymous wrote:this and all the other bans on legacy is a direct result of striking down AA at all colleges by the supreme court.

legacy was safe as long as AA was there to lend it cover. with AA struck down, it shone a light on how elitist legacy policies are.

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

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

The WalMart grandkids are still getting in because of the building donation. Legacy status is irrelevant to that.

The law bans donor precerences as well.

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?.

Ask Amherst. I’ve also been curious about this.

Ask JHU.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rinatorchinsky/2023/08/28/kids-of-alumni-get-special-treatment-at-80-of-americas-top-private-colleges/

In fact, [Johns] Hopkins’ Phillips says the university did not see a decline in donations after removing legacy consideration.

Anonymous wrote:There are so, so many bitter and sour grapes kids and their parents on this thread.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, you're still not getting in. Yale not immediately ushering in the triple legacy applicant upcoming in 2028 doesn't clear the decks for you.

And your envy is nonproductive and ugly