Anonymous wrote:

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.

Emory is a more popular school than WashU and Rice and just as elite...

Anonymous wrote:How many other colleges will follow CA?

I think PA may rule accordingly soon.

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--wasn't that the era when they looked for the "all around" candidates, meaning they were supposedly not "grinds"? It played on Jewish stereotypes of the era.

And I cynically think this is another work-around to decrease the number of Jews in the class. So many Ivy donors with legacy applicant kids are Jewish today. This became very apparent in all the pushback against pro-Hamas activism last year. Harvard is said to be aiming for no more than 2% Jewish, in line w American population.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, a Jewish news wire service, reported in 1967 that Jewish students had reached high numbers at the Ivies after decades of low enrollments. The news outlet cited a New York Times survey at the time, which found that the student bodies at Columbia University and University of Pennsylvania were 40 percent Jewish. Jewish student populations at Harvard, Yale and Cornell were estimated to be between 20 and 25 percent, while those at Dartmouth, Princeton and Brown hovered between 13 and 20 percent.

Jews now make up 9.9 percent of Harvard’s undergraduate enrollment and 12.2 percent at Yale, according to estimates on Hillel’s website. The share of Jewish students at Columbia University is an estimated 22.3 percent. Roughly 8.8 percent of Dartmouth students, and 9.6 percent of Princeton students, are Jewish. Cornell and Brown are the only two Ivies to buck the trend of significant declines compared to the 1960s, with Jewish students making up 21.5 percent and 23.9 percent, respectively, of the enrollment.

Anonymous wrote:Is California now going to enact a law where someone can’t hire their family member for employment? Private schools that are privately funded shouldn’t be subject to laws prohibiting who they can enroll.

Anonymous wrote:not in effect til sept 2025 and by then there will be more lawsuits that this is unconstitutional

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

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--wasn't that the era when they looked for the "all around" candidates, meaning they were supposedly not "grinds"? It played on Jewish stereotypes of the era.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.