I was more opposed to the law than to ending legacy admissions.
I don’t like governors telling schools what should be studied in African American Studies, I don’t think the Supreme Court needs to tell admissions what factors they can use, and I don’t think a state legislature should be telling them either. I think there’s been a shift away from universities’ freedom and independence.
That said, in the long run, ending donor admissions may be a good thing for Stanford.
There’s this YouTube guy who travels to highly selective campuses and asks students how they got in, what’s the craziest scandal they’ve heard of, and what’s the craziest rich person flex they’ve heard of, and it sounds like things are getting really bad — kids buying out entire Michelin restaurants for a birthday party or flying to Europe for a long weekend. Maybe campuses need to deflate the privileges of the ultra ultra rich. And many schools that don’t give legacy preferences (or have dropped them) have improved their rankings (MIT, Johns Hopkins).
I don’t like governors telling schools what should be studied in African American Studies, I don’t think the Supreme Court needs to tell admissions what factors they can use, and I don’t think a state legislature should be telling them either. I think there’s been a shift away from universities’ freedom and independence.
That said, in the long run, ending donor admissions may be a good thing for Stanford.
There’s this YouTube guy who travels to highly selective campuses and asks students how they got in, what’s the craziest scandal they’ve heard of, and what’s the craziest rich person flex they’ve heard of, and it sounds like things are getting really bad — kids buying out entire Michelin restaurants for a birthday party or flying to Europe for a long weekend. Maybe campuses need to deflate the privileges of the ultra ultra rich. And many schools that don’t give legacy preferences (or have dropped them) have improved their rankings (MIT, Johns Hopkins).