[BostonCard]

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.

If "the other school" is USC, that sounds like a really bad deal for Stanford. I suspect that the schools will simply not ask about whether a relative attended the school, just as the prohibition on affirmative action has led to schools not asking about race/ethnicity on their applications.

Simply by virtue of having a college educated parent, let alone a Stanford educated one, most legacies already have a leg up on college admissions.  Even though I have a kid applying to colleges right now, I don't have an issue with her not getting a marginal leg up if she even applies to Stanford

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

If "the other school" is USC, that sounds like a really bad deal for Stanford. I suspect that the schools will simply not ask about whether a relative attended the school, just as the prohibition on affirmative action has led to schools not asking about race/ethnicity on their applications.

Simply by virtue of having a college educated parent, let alone a Stanford educated one, most legacies already have a leg up on college admissions.  Even though I have a kid applying to colleges right now, I don't have an issue with her not getting a marginal leg up if she even applies to Stanford

BC