[dabigv13]

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?

[dabigv13]

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?

[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.

[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

[dabigv13]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces...0240AB1780

Here's is the bill text. Not really a lot there. Seems the schools themselves monitor for compliance, and if they break the law they themselves are the ones who have to tell the state. If they do break the law then they have to write a report about the legacy numbers for that year, and the state can publish the name of the school and the report. No students are identified in that report.

Maybe SC and Stanford simply stop asking about legacy on their apps and use their alumni/donor database to fill in the blanks. Maybe the law is so intentionally toothless so as to avert legal challenge or perhaps to allow the status quo to more or less persist while still garnering some positive headlines on something that most voters think is bad.

[dabigv13]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces...0240AB1780

Here's is the bill text. Not really a lot there. Seems the schools themselves monitor for compliance, and if they break the law they themselves are the ones who have to tell the state. If they do break the law then they have to write a report about the legacy numbers for that year, and the state can publish the name of the school and the report. No students are identified in that report.

Maybe SC and Stanford simply stop asking about legacy on their apps and use their alumni/donor database to fill in the blanks. Maybe the law is so intentionally toothless so as to avert legal challenge or perhaps to allow the status quo to more or less persist while still garnering some positive headlines on something that most voters think is bad.

[needle]

I wonder how many athletes received preferential treatment in admissions at Stanford because of any legacy status. Will this end up affecting recruiting?

My opinion is that private universities should be free to consider legacy status. I do believe that a case can be made for why public universities should not consider legacy status. I know some of these similar bills in other states made a distinction between public and private universities, excluding private universities from the anti-legacy law. I guess not in California.

[needle]

I wonder how many athletes received preferential treatment in admissions at Stanford because of any legacy status. Will this end up affecting recruiting?

My opinion is that private universities should be free to consider legacy status. I do believe that a case can be made for why public universities should not consider legacy status. I know some of these similar bills in other states made a distinction between public and private universities, excluding private universities from the anti-legacy law. I guess not in California.

[TrumpCard]

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.

So now people won't donate to the university.  They'll establish a fund for NLI money to be directed to Stanford athletes and/or buy tickets to sporting events at inflated prices.  As a lawyer, I can assure you that people will find a way around the rule re: donors.  I'm less convinced there will be a good way around the rule re: legacies who aren't donors.

[TrumpCard]

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.

So now people won't donate to the university.  They'll establish a fund for NLI money to be directed to Stanford athletes and/or buy tickets to sporting events at inflated prices.  As a lawyer, I can assure you that people will find a way around the rule re: donors.  I'm less convinced there will be a good way around the rule re: legacies who aren't donors.

[McKenwood]

Another bill that California enacts that is more performative than useful.

If we are going to discuss admissions perferences everything should be on the table. Race, economic status, legacy, donor, faculty brats (my case) and athletic admissions. I'm probably missing some.

All of the discussion about race based admissions or legacy is too limited in scope. Can you imagine the furor if the Supreme Court eliminated admssions preferences for athletes?

[McKenwood]

Another bill that California enacts that is more performative than useful.

If we are going to discuss admissions perferences everything should be on the table. Race, economic status, legacy, donor, faculty brats (my case) and athletic admissions. I'm probably missing some.

All of the discussion about race based admissions or legacy is too limited in scope. Can you imagine the furor if the Supreme Court eliminated admssions preferences for athletes?

[M T]

I doubt the lawmakers intended to miss the situation of "I will donate $X once this person is admitted", but I didn't read it closely.  But I will assume the law covers applicants whose admission is associated with a promised donation to the school.

NIL supposedly doesn't include payments from the school to the athlete.  The benefits the school provides to the athlete are tuition, room-and-board, etc.  If the expected benefit to the school of the applying athlete exceeds that, would that expected benefit be considered a donation (even if such a "donation" is financially covered by a third party in some way).  Is this benefit provided by the athlete a payment-in-kind? 

If so, would this bill make admission preferences for athletes (at least those that benefit the school more than the cost of their tuition, etc) reportable?

IANAL

[M T]

I doubt the lawmakers intended to miss the situation of "I will donate $X once this person is admitted", but I didn't read it closely.  But I will assume the law covers applicants whose admission is associated with a promised donation to the school.

NIL supposedly doesn't include payments from the school to the athlete.  The benefits the school provides to the athlete are tuition, room-and-board, etc.  If the expected benefit to the school of the applying athlete exceeds that, would that expected benefit be considered a donation (even if such a "donation" is financially covered by a third party in some way).  Is this benefit provided by the athlete a payment-in-kind? 

If so, would this bill make admission preferences for athletes (at least those that benefit the school more than the cost of their tuition, etc) reportable?

IANAL

[TrumpCard]

The UCs already eliminated standardized test scores.  CA could pass a legislative ban on that too.  The one thing I assure you is that there will be no legislation eliminating preferences for athletes.  Our society values athletics above academics, and the perception that we aren't a true meritocracy will continue until the only thing considered in admissions is athletic prowess.  (Tongue in check only a little.)

[TrumpCard]

The UCs already eliminated standardized test scores.  CA could pass a legislative ban on that too.  The one thing I assure you is that there will be no legislation eliminating preferences for athletes.  Our society values athletics above academics, and the perception that we aren't a true meritocracy will continue until the only thing considered in admissions is athletic prowess.  (Tongue in check only a little.)

[BostonCard]

The argument is that legacy status is an immutable characteristic.  There is nothing that an individual can do to change their legacy status, and it says nothing about the applicant.  While you can quibble a lot about the relevance of athletic achievement is to a university, it at least is an individual's own accomplishment, and generally a sign of drive, leadership, etc.  I'm now of the opinion that we should de-emphasize the role of athletics, but I don't think that athletic achievement ought to be completely irrelevant to university admission (as are other extracurriculars, student government, volunteering, musical accomplishment, etc.). There is no formula for admitting people to Stanford (GPA x 400 + SAT or whatever the old Durrett formula was) nor do I think we want one.

As for the State's interest, it should be obvious for state schools, but even private schools get federal and state (eg https://www.cirm.ca.gov/active-awards-portfolio/) money, and all of them are tax exempt, presumably because they advance the state's interest in educating its citizens.

BC

[BostonCard]

The argument is that legacy status is an immutable characteristic.  There is nothing that an individual can do to change their legacy status, and it says nothing about the applicant.  While you can quibble a lot about the relevance of athletic achievement is to a university, it at least is an individual's own accomplishment, and generally a sign of drive, leadership, etc.  I'm now of the opinion that we should de-emphasize the role of athletics, but I don't think that athletic achievement ought to be completely irrelevant to university admission (as are other extracurriculars, student government, volunteering, musical accomplishment, etc.). There is no formula for admitting people to Stanford (GPA x 400 + SAT or whatever the old Durrett formula was) nor do I think we want one.

As for the State's interest, it should be obvious for state schools, but even private schools get federal and state (eg https://www.cirm.ca.gov/active-awards-portfolio/) money, and all of them are tax exempt, presumably because they advance the state's interest in educating its citizens.

BC

[Mudhead]

The argument is that legacy status is an immutable characteristic.  There is nothing that an individual can do to change their legacy status, and it says nothing about the applicant.  While you can quibble a lot about the relevance of athletic achievement is to a university, it at least is an individual's own accomplishment, and generally a sign of drive, leadership, etc.  I'm now of the opinion that we should de-emphasize the role of athletics, but I don't think that athletic achievement ought to be completely irrelevant to university admission (as are other extracurriculars, student government, volunteering, musical accomplishment, etc.). There is no formula for admitting people to Stanford (GPA x 400 + SAT or whatever the old Durrett formula was) nor do I think we want one.



As for the State's interest, it should be obvious for state schools, but even private schools get federal and state (eg https://www.cirm.ca.gov/active-awards-portfolio/) money, and all of them are tax exempt, presumably because they advance the state's interest in educating its citizens

BC

You make many good points.  Especially the thought that once an institution like Stanford   accepts a lot of government money, it also accepts Federal regulation. some of it, like Title IX is something we applaud, even thought the elimination of any vestige of due process that comes with it makes us all a tad queasy. Some of it, like massive defense research grants worries us.  Thanks to State actors in Sacramento we see the unfortunate but logical extension of this thinking … government control of the admissions process at a private institution.

Why not turn over faculty selection and curricula determination over to them as well? We could save a lot of money by gettting rid of the Presidents office and the faculty .  All we really need is a few GS 15’s and an Assistant Sec of .education to run this school .

[Mudhead]

The argument is that legacy status is an immutable characteristic.  There is nothing that an individual can do to change their legacy status, and it says nothing about the applicant.  While you can quibble a lot about the relevance of athletic achievement is to a university, it at least is an individual's own accomplishment, and generally a sign of drive, leadership, etc.  I'm now of the opinion that we should de-emphasize the role of athletics, but I don't think that athletic achievement ought to be completely irrelevant to university admission (as are other extracurriculars, student government, volunteering, musical accomplishment, etc.). There is no formula for admitting people to Stanford (GPA x 400 + SAT or whatever the old Durrett formula was) nor do I think we want one.



As for the State's interest, it should be obvious for state schools, but even private schools get federal and state (eg https://www.cirm.ca.gov/active-awards-portfolio/) money, and all of them are tax exempt, presumably because they advance the state's interest in educating its citizens

BC

You make many good points.  Especially the thought that once an institution like Stanford   accepts a lot of government money, it also accepts Federal regulation. some of it, like Title IX is something we applaud, even thought the elimination of any vestige of due process that comes with it makes us all a tad queasy. Some of it, like massive defense research grants worries us.  Thanks to State actors in Sacramento we see the unfortunate but logical extension of this thinking … government control of the admissions process at a private institution.

Why not turn over faculty selection and curricula determination over to them as well? We could save a lot of money by gettting rid of the Presidents office and the faculty .  All we really need is a few GS 15’s and an Assistant Sec of .education to run this school .

[Vandelay]

Yet another terrible law from the State of California.  Private colleges and universities should be allowed to admit whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to.  Don't like it?  Then send your kids to UC.

[Vandelay]

Yet another terrible law from the State of California.  Private colleges and universities should be allowed to admit whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to.  Don't like it?  Then send your kids to UC.

[Snorlax94]

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).

[Snorlax94]

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).

[Mick]

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).

Harvard studies academic/economic inequality:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023...sions.html

Harvard perpetuates academic/economic inequality with their back door for underqualified, uber-rich students, the Z List.
https://nypost.com/2023/11/06/news/harva...fied-kids/

[Mick]

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).

Harvard studies academic/economic inequality:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023...sions.html

Harvard perpetuates academic/economic inequality with their back door for underqualified, uber-rich students, the Z List.
https://nypost.com/2023/11/06/news/harva...fied-kids/

[TrumpCard]

The ultra rich get lots of privileges. I don’t have a problem with it. No one ever said the world would be 100% fair. If their kids don’t go to Stanford, they’ll still go somewhere good, and that other school will get the 8- or 9-figure donation. If Stanford were giving significant preferences to people who donate an extra year of tuition, I’d say that’s garbage, but 10+ million, I’m cool.

[TrumpCard]

The ultra rich get lots of privileges. I don’t have a problem with it. No one ever said the world would be 100% fair. If their kids don’t go to Stanford, they’ll still go somewhere good, and that other school will get the 8- or 9-figure donation. If Stanford were giving significant preferences to people who donate an extra year of tuition, I’d say that’s garbage, but 10+ million, I’m cool.