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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

No , if they get in with fair competition like everyone ele.

How will anyone know one way or the other? Will they just reject legacies to avoid litigation?

We expect integrity and honesty from the institutions for higher education in the US and them to follow laws just like they expect the same from its students.

If they get caught violating the laws, the consequences will be severe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.

Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies

No one gives money just so they can get a seat. Most donors are megalomaniacs who like to die happy that their name will live on for posterity on the face of a building or some such. Donations will not stop.

Your argument is similar to the anti-tax people make. OMG, rich people will leave if you raise taxes too much. Guess what, we did have high taxes and everyone was fine and happy back then.

This. The big ticket donations ($20 million+++) that move the needle at elite schools come from those who put their names on buildings/research centers etc. Treating every legacy as a potential cash cow is imprecise.

utterly false. I'm a Harvard alum. All of us give ONLY to get our kids. (an yes we co
oare figures out to 8 digitd
s). You take that perq away and we go back to funding true charities for the needy

And it looks like you got a stellar education there, particularly in the language arts. I'm sure your alma mater is thrilled that you are proclaiming your association, PP. You are a credit to the university.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

No , if they get in with fair competition like everyone ele.

How will anyone know one way or the other? Will they just reject legacies to avoid litigation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

No , if they get in with fair competition like everyone ele.

“Ban legacy admissions” means, literally, banning admission of legacy students. There isn’t enough legal word salad to twist that into disregarding alum status, which is what you describe, PP.

Everyone can do regular admission.
It means legacy blind just like race blind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

do you think that end of affirmative action in CA means it's illegal for Black kids to be admitted?

Affirmative Action means legacy preference for certain racial and ethnic groups. Removing preference is the same as being race blind (although I don’t practically see how that is possible at schools that do visits and interviews).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

do you think that end of affirmative action in CA means it's illegal for Black kids to be admitted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

No , if they get in with fair competition like everyone ele.

“Ban legacy admissions” means, literally, banning admission of legacy students. There isn’t enough legal word salad to twist that into disregarding alum status, which is what you describe, PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

Right? People are so dense. This bill can pass and it won't matter. Stanford, Pomona, USC, they'll all continue to admit the students they want, using whatever criteria they want and just call it something else. The daughter of a $20 million donor/alum will still get into Stanford. This is just virtue signaling, as a previous poster pointed out.

I agree that it is virtue signaling, but the bill requires that the percentage of legacy admissions is reported each year, which can be checked independently using data from the Common App. I would expect the number of legacies to decrease by a significant percentage (easier to hide big donors) for the next few years to make it look like they are in compliance with the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

No , if they get in with fair competition like everyone ele.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

Right? People are so dense. This bill can pass and it won't matter. Stanford, Pomona, USC, they'll all continue to admit the students they want, using whatever criteria they want and just call it something else. The daughter of a $20 million donor/alum will still get into Stanford. This is just virtue signaling, as a previous poster pointed out.

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions were banned at CA publics 25 years ago.

So if your parents went to UC Berkeley, it’s illegal for you to be admitted?

How is this legal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait until all these first-gen college students realize their own kids will not have the same hook they did, and now they won't have legacy either. And lots less financial aid to go around as well. People really don't think long-term, do they? By the way, this kind of bill can't govern a private institution anyway.

Not true. The legislators tied Cal Grant funding to the banning of legacy admission. The private colleges/universities in CA would have to give up the funding if they don't want to follow the law. They won't do that because the grants are tied to low and middle income students and they wouldn't give up that funding stream AND it would look politically bad to do so.

+10000
Privates can do whatever they wnat to do but not with a dime of my tax money

Cal Grant covers about $9K/year for an eligible student, so schools can decide accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait until all these first-gen college students realize their own kids will not have the same hook they did, and now they won't have legacy either. And lots less financial aid to go around as well. People really don't think long-term, do they? By the way, this kind of bill can't govern a private institution anyway.

Not true. The legislators tied Cal Grant funding to the banning of legacy admission. The private colleges/universities in CA would have to give up the funding if they don't want to follow the law. They won't do that because the grants are tied to low and middle income students and they wouldn't give up that funding stream AND it would look politically bad to do so.

+10000
Privates can do whatever they wnat to do but not with a dime of my tax money