California Bans Legacy Admissions At Private, Nonprofit Universities (politico.com) 32
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Politico: It will soon be illegal for public and private universities in California to consider an applicant's relationship to alumni or donors when deciding whether to admit them. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed a ban on the practice known as legacy admissions, a change that will affect prestigious institutions including Stanford University and the University of Southern California. California's law, which will take effect Sept. 1, 2025, is the nation's fifth legacy admissions ban, but only the second that will apply to private colleges. "In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work," Newsom said in a statement. "The California Dream shouldn't be accessible to just a lucky few, which is why we're opening the door to higher education wide enough for everyone, fairly."
Like other states, California won't financially penalize violators, but it will post the names of violators on the state Department of Justice's website. California will also add to data reporting requirements that it implemented in 2022, when private colleges had to start sharing the percentage of admitted students who were related to donors and alumni. Schools that run afoul of the new law will also have to report more granular demographic information about their incoming classes to the state, including the race and income of enrolled students as well as their participation in athletics. [...] Public universities in California won't be affected by the change. California State University does not consider legacy or donor ties, and the University of California system stopped doing so in 1998, two years after California voters banned race-conscious admissions through a statewide ballot measure.
Like other states, California won't financially penalize violators, but it will post the names of violators on the state Department of Justice's website. California will also add to data reporting requirements that it implemented in 2022, when private colleges had to start sharing the percentage of admitted students who were related to donors and alumni. Schools that run afoul of the new law will also have to report more granular demographic information about their incoming classes to the state, including the race and income of enrolled students as well as their participation in athletics. [...] Public universities in California won't be affected by the change. California State University does not consider legacy or donor ties, and the University of California system stopped doing so in 1998, two years after California voters banned race-conscious admissions through a statewide ballot measure.
"everyone should be able to get ahead..." (Score:3)
"...through merit, skill, and hard work"
Excellent idea in theory!
In practice, however, there is no perfect way to accurately measure "merit, skill, and hard work". It's all still subjective with lots of room for incompetence, favoritism and corruption
Never let perfect be the enemy of good (Score:2)
One the one hand it's not appropriate to raise one's hand against one's betters like this.
On the other hand everything's supposed to be a meritocracy.
Ultimately I know the way this gets resolved internally: "The Divine Right Of Kings". The King is inherently better and more meritocratic because he's the King.
But it's gone out of fashion to say that out loud, so you need to kind of tie yourself in a pretzel mentally if
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's not the issue. The problem with restricting legacies isn't how it affects the affluent who buy their way into school, the issue is restricting a private institution's right to provide a service to those they wish.
Think of the cake scenario, this isn't forcing the cake maker to sell to someone they don't want to. It isn't even forcing them to make a custom creation for someone they don't want to. It's telling them they aren't allowed to sell or even give a cake away to someone they like, perso
"wide enough for everyone, fairly" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Found the MAGA.
These are the same people who are giving death threats to a Republican businessman [yahoo.com] because he employees Haitians. They're upset because he said . . . *checks notes* . . .
“They come to work every day. They don’t cause drama. They’re on time,”
I am pretty sure this is the same guy I heard say they can also pass a drug test. So yeah, of course MAGA would be upset.
I think you forgot something, Gov. Newsom (Score:2)
"In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work," Newsom said in a statement
What about crippling student loan debt? I suppose that falls under that whole "hard work" umbrella...
Re: I think you forgot something, Gov. Newsom (Score:2)
If you want to solve that problem, you're going to have to limit the availability of student loans. Among other things, put tighter controls on how much is given for cost of living expenses (today's loans allow students to spend like drunken sailors, and that's exactly what many do and then complain about having to pay it all back) and limit the tuition rates for schools that want eligibility for any federal aid at all (loans, FAFSA, etc.)
Watch how fast academia goes back to being academia again.
Re: I think you forgot something, Gov. Newsom (Score:2)
Oh, and for that same eligibility, forbid the practice of requiring textbooks with one-time-use codes or any other non-consumable materials that are designed to not be re-sold on the open market. That's a racket that should have stopped a long time ago.
That's great. (Score:3)
The real access/"equity" problem with college nowadays is the cost. College costs rise at the same rate as government subsidies [visualcapitalist.com] and other loan and student aid programs increase. The cost of college in the 1950's was negligible and people regularly worked their way through school with no debt at all. It was government loans and subsidies that drove the costs sky high. The greedy colleges just increased their tuition by whatever rate people could get loans to attend.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they arguably pay for more than their share on the tuition front when you add donations.
Another argument I've seen is that the colleges, at least Yale, Harvard, and such, are actually social networking institutions almost more than education.
Basically, talented merit accepted students social network with the rich legacies for jobs after graduation.
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to ban any race consideration in admissions, then legacies should be banned as well because it is basically just race based admissions for white people. Yes, you can say it applies to everyone, but you have to look back and acknowledge that for a LONG time, the only people allowed into college were white so it is inherently racist. And if you are acknowledging that these people are let in because of their parents donations, you are admitting that spots at the school are for sale, which again
Re: (Score:2)
or a LONG time, the only people allowed into college were white
That is an exaggeration. And it is disturbing to the extent that there is a focus on correcting the relatively small disadvantages that our legacy of racism create for the black elite. Its Barack Obama's comment that he "still couldn't get a cab in New York City." as if the impact of racism was just as a source of inconvenience. Its opening the Oscars to more African-American winners in response to a poor black man dying with a white cop's knee on his throat in south Minneapolis. We need to understand that
Re: That's great. (Score:2)
Labor productivity has increased by a factor of 5 in that time frame. Do you think "small section" classes now have 75 students in them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the people who provide the most direct benefit to the school, who grow its faculty and facility, and fund its research are foul? If we make the assumption (and granted, it may be a bad assumption) that tuition is roughly in-line with the cost to provide an education, then most students who do not rely on scholarship are basically net neutral. Legacies on the other hand, primaries those who get their slots through donations to the school, are a major net positive. They provide the funds that allow the s
Merit, skill and hard work? (Score:2)
A giant step sideways for meritocracy (Score:2)
Big name schools grease the skids for athletes and donors. Middle class middlebrow Joe Blow's kid isn't getting any special preferences if he went there unless Joe manages to cough up a six figure donation, with promises of more to come.
Re: (Score:2)
That's essentially how our society reimplemented feudalism running in emulation under capitalism. Of course, the major difference is that if someone from outside the nobility class is particularly "gifted" (are we still allowed to say that?) in athletics or scholastic aptitude, we'll sometimes give them a free ride so they can join the nobility class.
At the end of the day though, we've just changed the criteria for what constitutes a noble birthright. If you're not particularly good at school or sports, w
Re: A giant step sideways for meritocracy (Score:2)
Under capitalism, you work so you can eat.
Under communism, you eat so you can work.
Having lived under the latter, I very much prefer the former.
Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
How the heck are they (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in, Harvard to drastically expand the number of regatta, dressage, fencing, and croquet teams.
DEI (Score:2)
I don't have a strong opinion either way on this issue but I do find it both disgusting and hilarious that Newsome uses that same mouth to promote DEI biases and also say "...through merit, skill, and hard work".
Crazy (Score:1)
Hey call me crazy, but maybe if you pay a million dollars for something that usually costs 100k... you should get the thing that you paid for.
Seriously, why is it a problem for them that rich people can pay their way into college? You're never going to get around it, that's how the world works.
Private? (Score:2)
I don't see how California has any jurisdiction on private school admissions.
On top of that, aren't legacy admissions really just focusing on your genealogy...much like where you came from, not only who your daddy is, but what heritage you have? Yet, legacy admissions mean the schools continue to benefit from happy donors. Isn't this really attempting to cutting off the individual funding for schools so the state can swoop in and take over? Seems like a really bad idea.