Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not conservatives that are whining about this. It's the entitled liberals that are whining, conservatives barely believe in college anymore and the ones that do want their kids to get an engineering degree at a state school or something.

Well a pp stated that they are glad they live in a red state where they would not ban legacy, not that there are many private colleges in red states that most people would consider elite.

Like I said, I'm trying hard to think of a school in a red state where anyone here would even care.

Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash U, sometimes Georgia -> Emory & Georgia Tech. Notre Dame.

Some people care about SMU, Baylor.

Dartmouth (red state govt)

Penn and Carnegie Mellon are in a state that you may have heard is a "swing state." Bucknell, Lehigh, Swarthmore etc etc etc

North Carolina is not a red state.
New Hampshire is not a red state.

Rice, Wash U, and Vanderbilt are legit.

OK I retract.

NH is quite red. Its dems are red.

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

This is silly. I think data would show colleges with legacies and siblings can have the strongest closest communities. My kid is at one of these now and the community is much closer and tighter than kid at another college that does not have it.

If this is the case, why not just admit all legacies?

I think that would be good. ND would prefer it.

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

This is silly. I think data would show colleges with legacies and siblings can have the strongest closest communities. My kid is at one of these now and the community is much closer and tighter than kid at another college that does not have it.

If this is the case, why not just admit all legacies?

There was a time when they practically did.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not conservatives that are whining about this. It's the entitled liberals that are whining, conservatives barely believe in college anymore and the ones that do want their kids to get an engineering degree at a state school or something.

Well a pp stated that they are glad they live in a red state where they would not ban legacy, not that there are many private colleges in red states that most people would consider elite.

Like I said, I'm trying hard to think of a school in a red state where anyone here would even care.

Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash U, sometimes Georgia -> Emory & Georgia Tech. Notre Dame.

Some people care about SMU, Baylor.

Dartmouth (red state govt)

Penn and Carnegie Mellon are in a state that you may have heard is a "swing state." Bucknell, Lehigh, Swarthmore etc etc etc

North Carolina is not a red state.
New Hampshire is not a red state.

Rice, Wash U, and Vanderbilt are legit.

OK I retract.

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

This is silly. I think data would show colleges with legacies and siblings can have the strongest closest communities. My kid is at one of these now and the community is much closer and tighter than kid at another college that does not have it.

If this is the case, why not just admit all legacies?

Anonymous wrote:Agree that legacy practices should end, but I do think that colleges will notice a decease in alumni support. Maybe not a lot, but some. I donated to my college sporadically since graduation, but my donations became larger and more consistent over the years. I wanted to maintain a connection in case DC decided she wanted to go. DC hated the school and VA banned legacy admissions. Donations probably won't resume.

This is effectively buying your kid's way into a college. Glad it's banned now. There should be no place for that in our society.

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

This is silly. I think data would show colleges with legacies and siblings can have the strongest closest communities. My kid is at one of these now and the community is much closer and tighter than kid at another college that does not have it.

Spots are limited in top schools and the same families do not have to be part of these strong and close communities because their parents and grandparents got in at a time when admissions rates were much higher.

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

This is silly. I think data would show colleges with legacies and siblings can have the strongest closest communities. My kid is at one of these now and the community is much closer and tighter than kid at another college that does not have it.

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.

It's not conservatives that are whining about this. It's the entitled liberals that are whining, conservatives barely believe in college anymore and the ones that do want their kids to get an engineering degree at a state school or something.

Well a pp stated that they are glad they live in a red state where they would not ban legacy, not that there are many private colleges in red states that most people would consider elite.

Like I said, I'm trying hard to think of a school in a red state where anyone here would even care.

Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash U, sometimes Georgia -> Emory & Georgia Tech. Notre Dame.

Some people care about SMU, Baylor.

Dartmouth (red state govt)

Penn and Carnegie Mellon are in a state that you may have heard is a "swing state." Bucknell, Lehigh, Swarthmore etc etc etc

Anonymous wrote:Agree that legacy practices should end, but I do think that colleges will notice a decease in alumni support. Maybe not a lot, but some. I donated to my college sporadically since graduation, but my donations became larger and more consistent over the years. I wanted to maintain a connection in case DC decided she wanted to go. DC hated the school and VA banned legacy admissions. Donations probably won't resume.

I think the opposite is true for me.
I never donated to USC because my alma mater didn't need my support because there were a bunch of people trying to get their kids in through the back door.
Any USC legacy with good grades and a decent SAT score could get into USC as a legacy. USC was an extremely good safety net school for reasonably bright USC legacies.
I don't think you needed to donate money but you figured it couldn't hurt. I have a lot of college friends that donated for this reason.
Then you kept donating money in your kid's name so your grandkids would have that safety net.
I had the good [bad?] fortune of marrying a woman noticeably smarter than me so I never felt the need to donate money to USC (in case donations mattered, they tell us it doesn't).

If USC needs money to accept provide need based aid because they are no longer selling seats to legacies, I will kick in.

So much for Democrats not telling people what they can do with their [student] body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are you in favor of banning legacies or opposed? This seems ridiculously dramatic but I can’t figure out what side your drama is coming from.

I am merely observing that 80% of the posts on this thread are downright gleeful. Borderline Schadenfreude even.

HA! Now you overly privileged lucky people will have one less thing you can count on! Take that!

It's not envy to see an an injustice remedied. Legacy preferences are unjust.

Exactly. This is one of those things that people are going to look back on one day and be shocked that we did. It’s not at all fair to choose applicants based on who their parents are.

Same with preferences based on skin color.

Agree that legacy practices should end, but I do think that colleges will notice a decease in alumni support. Maybe not a lot, but some. I donated to my college sporadically since graduation, but my donations became larger and more consistent over the years. I wanted to maintain a connection in case DC decided she wanted to go. DC hated the school and VA banned legacy admissions. Donations probably won't resume.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are you in favor of banning legacies or opposed? This seems ridiculously dramatic but I can’t figure out what side your drama is coming from.

I am merely observing that 80% of the posts on this thread are downright gleeful. Borderline Schadenfreude even.

HA! Now you overly privileged lucky people will have one less thing you can count on! Take that!

I think you are reading a bit much into the posts. That’s a very dramatic reading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are you in favor of banning legacies or opposed? This seems ridiculously dramatic but I can’t figure out what side your drama is coming from.

I am merely observing that 80% of the posts on this thread are downright gleeful. Borderline Schadenfreude even.

HA! Now you overly privileged lucky people will have one less thing you can count on! Take that!

It's not envy to see an an injustice remedied. Legacy preferences are unjust.

Exactly. This is one of those things that people are going to look back on one day and be shocked that we did. It’s not at all fair to choose applicants based on who their parents are.