[Mick]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30...s-00181655

Previously discussed but Newsom did end up signing the bill. Seems like an overstep of government authority that won't really meaningfully change anything for California students. Rich private schools make for good populist punching bags.

I wonder if the bill actually makes having a legacy connection a negative factor for admissions. Assuming two equally compelling applicants but one has some factor that the state negatively views and requires tracking and reporting, why take on that extra burden and scrutiny?

The law of unintended consequences in all its glory. Why take in a legacy admit when it will only look negative? And the potential workarounds look interesting; e.g., School 1 "trades" legacy admits with School 2, so they can claim they didn't allow legacies in, when each makes room for the other legacies.

[Mick]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30...s-00181655

Previously discussed but Newsom did end up signing the bill. Seems like an overstep of government authority that won't really meaningfully change anything for California students. Rich private schools make for good populist punching bags.

I wonder if the bill actually makes having a legacy connection a negative factor for admissions. Assuming two equally compelling applicants but one has some factor that the state negatively views and requires tracking and reporting, why take on that extra burden and scrutiny?

The law of unintended consequences in all its glory. Why take in a legacy admit when it will only look negative? And the potential workarounds look interesting; e.g., School 1 "trades" legacy admits with School 2, so they can claim they didn't allow legacies in, when each makes room for the other legacies.