California Bans Legacy Admissions At Private, Nonprofit Universities (politico.com) 57
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:1)
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, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with what you're saying ...
It's telling them they aren't allowed to sell or even give a cake away to someone they like, personally, because it might reduce the amount of cake available to others.
They're not forcing you to not sell the cake to whomever you want to. They're just gonna put your name on a wall of shame on the DOJ web site. I'd argue that even that is an overreach.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not exactly the same but it certainly rhymes with prosperity gospel.
"wide enough for everyone, fairly" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I can speak anecdotally as I don't know how much "in-pocket" expenses the loans give each student, but my daughter is going to graduate medical school with about a $370K debt (all from medical school). Of that, 20K/year was for living expenses. That's not much. Certainly barely enough to pay for an apartment, maintaining a car, food expenses, and miscellaneous.
That's great. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:3)
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)
Basically, talented merit accepted students social network with the rich legacies for jobs after graduation.
And vice versa. Rich legacies' social networks include a lot of talented people. The result is a world run by people that are part of the same Harvard and Yale social network. You don't go to those schools to get an education. You go to a small private college or public university where the professors actually teach students. You go to Yale or Harvard because your life is defined by ambition. No matter what your ambitions, there will people at Harvard and Yale that can help you achieve them.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't go to those schools to get an education. You go to a small private college or public university where the professors actually teach students.
Your thesis is that the quality of education at Harvard and Yale is so poor that you would get a better education elsewhere -- the professors don't "actually teach students".
Something tells me you didn't go to college at all, but you seriously resent those who did.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I said "almost more than education" because they're still very good schools, but other accredited schools are pretty much as good, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but the variation of the average student is about the same.
But the stupidly high standards of those institutions, outside of legacies, helps craft a narrative that helps said students succeed more easily, even without the social networking.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, editing problem left something unclear: I was trying to say that the variations between students makes more of a difference in the educational outcome than the differences in instruction and such at places like Harvard and Yale.
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: (Score:2)
or a LONG time, the only people allowed into college were white
That is an exaggeration.
Not really. If college admissions in the past preferentially admitted white students, and that is now illegal, but it's legal to preferentially admit the children of students who had admitted back when admissions were preferentially white, that's just a way of freezing in the discrimination of the past without calling it discrimination.
But in fact, what it is actually more like is freezing in discrimination in favor of rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yawn. Yes, there are class issues, but along with those class issues are racism issues. There is a huge intersectionality between race and class issues. Yes, money and fame can overcome many race issues, but even that cannot overcome all of them. That doesn't change any of the facts. Most colleges only really started accepting black students around the 70s (i.e. in my lifetime). The fact that rich black people are insulting from this doesn't mean it isn't still happening to everyone else.
As for tuition,
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:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
but an outright ban seems like it might have unintended consequences.
Yeah, I mean heaven forbid people like George Bush get into Yale. But I mean, he was a competent president, right?
Your idea seems to be that if they get rid of legacy admissions, they will not get as much money. Extrapolate that into the worst case and these colleges go out of business. Then we'd need to have public colleges. We might have to find plans for system like that in California, nothing existing like that already.
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: (Score:2)
Big name schools grease the skids for athletes and donors.
What a shame it would be if that stopped happening. /s
Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
How the heck are they (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This just in, Harvard to drastically expand the number of regatta, dressage, fencing, and croquet teams.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Private? (Score:2)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You just don't see? Can I suggest some remedial high school civics before you enroll? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I mean, ostensibly the government can pass any laws it wants to, but at some point, it starts to run afoul of free speech rights and the right for a private business to do business or refuse to do business with whomever it chooses (within the limits of not discriminating against protected classes, of course). A private college is, after all, a business, albeit ostensibly a charitable one, and nothing prevents them from having a policy of flat out auctioning off positions in the incoming class to the highes
Re: Private? (Score:2)
Only if you believe in incorporation, which is certainly not explicit in the Constitution. And create an implicit definition of "due process of law" for the measure to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Put another way, if you're judging people based on what school they attended, you're already doing something bad, ...
The main value to industry of schools with selective admissions is the selection part. The private sector in the US is not allowed to give IQ tests or any g-loaded tests that have "disparate impact on protected classes", but colleges can in the form of SATs / LSATs / GMATs etc. So as an employer can ride on those coattails. The fact that a student body of smart and prepared people can
Re: (Score:2)
Plus more students will be taking out loans. You're replacing a rich donor child with someone else who will need to take out a loan. I mean, assuming that the donar children weren't able to get in on merit alone.
I think California specifically wants everyone to have to rely on the government.
Re: Private? (Score:2)
More likely, you're replacing someone that borrows every last penny available with someone that ponies up their hard-earned wages due to irrational fear of debt. Why would you pay for anything where the available interest rate is lower than the expected rate of market return? Shoot, you probably think modest loan forgiveness is "taxpayer money" rather than foregone government profits, too.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm guessing it is because state of CA provides money of some kind to private schools and therefore have a say in how the school operates. For example a school does not have to follow Title IX regarding women's sports if the school does not receive any federal money. A few smaller schools have gone this route to maintain complete independence. Therefore, I assume the CA private schools could go this route if they wanted, could challenge the law as overstepping on a private institution, or could basically ig
Yale *could* use an international airport Mr Burns (Score:2)
Yale *could* use an international airport Mr Burns
Legacy admissions? Really? (Score:2)
As a Brit, I find the idea appalling. We have no expectation of a parent's going to a university having any influence in getting the child in. To be fair we have only recently started to target graduates for donations actively, though I remember when I was at Oxford over 40 years ago a donation linked to a child being subsequently admitted did get publicity - as something very new. If I remember correctly the donation was in the hundreds of thousands. That's a serious sum of money... but just for your paren
Re: (Score:2)
"Merit, skill and hard work" (Score:2)