California bans legacy admissions at all colleges

White people are in trouble!

If they’re going to start banning affirmative action from universities, then this is fair game.

That’s dumb to me. However I think it should only be one generation down. Legacy admission folks still have to have the grades to back it up. It just gives them an edge. Why are both the left and right hell bent on fucking with a system that has clearly worked since the 60s.

Thank God.

When Harvard finally does this, though, I'll know thing have really changed. But this is a step along the way.

How can they tell private schools what to do?

It’s fairly toothless. To the extent it is challenged the primary defenses are state constitutional authority and that private colleges receive state funds by way of research programs and financial aid.

“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.”

R3 PFFFFFF go fuck yourself

“Legacy admission folks still have to have the grades to back it up.” That’s not a given, at all.

The real goal is to shame schools into dropping the preference. Looking at you, Stanford and U$C.

Caltech is the only important private school that never had legacy preferences. The UC system has never authorized them.

This would completely transform the UK, but will never happen.

All this is going to do is hurt solid but middle tier schools. People with legacy admissions often come from families who give much financial donations to the fucking school. Schools like Stanford won’t suffer. They like the Ivies, NYU, Georgetown are like the Gucci of college. Watch and see.

R11 - sure, I guess if their offspring are so dim that can't get into a middle-tier institution.

the general disdain is for the upper tier schools that are extremely hard to get into academically - to have those standards dismissed based on legacy IS unfair.

I acknowledge middle-tier schools have become more competitive, but there are a lot of middle-tier schools. There are only 25 schools in the top 25 list - that's what people are vying for.

I just don’t like intrusive legislation. What does this impact. Are less doctors and lawyers being produced because of legacy admissions? The same brilliant minds will still attain their degrees from some institution and go on to be engineers, physicians, etc had this never passed. It doesn’t improve society. It will have negative consequences. It’s superficial identity politics which California is the walking billboard for. I need the benefits in statistical data.

Well 90% of the pouplation is butthurt that undeserving people went to the top schools. The white people think it is minorities. The minorities think it is white people. The truth is it really doesn't matter that much. This is not like England where a certain degree is a class marker. It's just college.

It's funny because so many people think our chaotic society is more orderly and sinister than it actually is. Believe me, if Skull and Bones really ran Wall Street and the government, none of the demographic changes of the last forty years would have happened.

Teacunt, is there any thread you won't ruin?

100% this. The only thing people revealed to me when they're into stupid conspiracy theories is that they need to get out more.

Keep flagging, r16. 🚫

Moot issue. Most legacies don’t even need legacy preferences.

The real question is… will they ban donor preferences? THAT’s the real issue, people like Jared Kushner.

This is all smoke and mirrors.

R16 I’m sorry for having an opinion. Express yourself don’t regress yourself.

When you think about it, it's kind of amazing that California has managed to keep Berkeley's reputation together.

Wokedom going after universities because it feels good. Ultimately, it means pretty much nothing to them which privileged white kids get admitted over their peers, but discrediting universities, undermining their independence, and creating the concept that even private schools are a public resource is all music to the right who want to take control of higher education.

I guess r22's painful root canal turned them into a real cunt.🚫

R21 you mean because taxpayers only cover ~15% of the budget of their flagship campus, rated as the top public university in the world?

No, actually I'm surprised it's done so well despite the government interference.

R5 They probably can’t and this will go to the Supreme Court.

R14 Reading articles about Vance and Usha’s Yale experience I don’t think it’s “just college”. At Yale they were nurtured, molded for clerkships that are given to people in that exclusive network. Those clerkships result in a 6 figure signing bonus at law firms. They both went down that route and then Silicon Valley called for JD and the doors opened because of Yale and his network.

I know nothing about elite colleges but reading their story has had me shaking my head because it’s way, way more than just a degree and just another school.

It seems to my blue collar ass that the upper echelons of American society are locked down and an elite education is the key. Otherwise, a scrappy and very, very lucky person can try to find a “scenic route” but good luck.

[quote] It seems to my blue collar ass that the upper echelons of American society are locked down and an elite education is the key.

It should be no surprise that elite education is the key to the doors to elite institutions like prestigious law firms and academia and to connections that are valuable in many fields. That’s why people compete to get into these institutions. But that’s just a small sliver of the opportunities available to advance in American society. Keep in mind, getting into an elite school is not a guarantee of success. You still must thrive there and at each step along the way. Unless you’re Clarence Thomas.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the upper echelons of American society.” Most people measure success with money, and there are plenty of business opportunities that don’t require a degree from an elite institution.

I've never heard of legacy admissions for graduate schools - the issue is for undergraduate admissions.

I do agree that some of the legacy admissions have the academic credentials on their own - I've seen that. But the legacy typically won't do you much good if your parents don't donate significant sums on a regular basis.

The reality is - it was MUCH easier to get into top tier schools 60-50-40 years ago. That's just a fact - less competition. Just because your parent or grandparent went there, it shouldn't mean that you get extra points when the admission process has changed so much from that time.

All but one of my brothers’ kids went to a college that one of their parents attended. One to an Ivy and three to Big Ten schools. It creates an inter-generational bond for the family The schools were perhaps more likely to admit the alumni kids because it felt (correctly) that they were more likely to enroll. Such ties probably encourage more financial support for the schools.

People are lashing out at this practice as if favoritism to alumni children is taking away spots from people who had been benefiting from affirmative action efforts, but schools are still looking for economic and other forms of diversity.

Legacy connections are not placing alumni kids ahead of deserving working class strivers. They are putting alumni kids ahead of other upper-middle class children of privilege. Those are the people who are “harmed’ by having to settle for a different prestigious school instead of the one they really wanted.

This is what progressives are focused on? This is a worthy goal to erode the traditional independence of universities? When there are fascists at the gates seeking control?

I think part of this is a naive fantasy that elite colleges should be out there scouring the land for the most talented and deserving students to give the golden ticket and that every spot that goes to an alumni’s kid is undeserved and given at the expense of fresh, raw talent out there in the wilderness. That finding this raw talent is a core mission of a school and they should be tools for elevating the underprivileged and stopping privilege from becoming intergenerational.

In reality, elite schools identify a pool of qualified applicants and then arbitrarily choose among them. Lots of extraneous factors come into play. Do they need a squash player or a running back? Does the orchestra have enough violinists? It’s far from a Utopian fantasy of pure, objective merit.

If you want to increase access to elite schools for the underprivileged, focus your attention on finding them early in life and getting them the preparation to succeed at the college level.

[quote] This is what progressives are focused on? This is a worthy goal to erode the traditional independence of universities?

Maybe. I think it's clear that there is gong to be a major demographic shift in the parties post election. The Dems have had to recapture the working class vote and they'll have to continue to pander to the working class, of all races, going forward. If Trump is ousted the Republicans have to re-centre themselves around people like JD, Vivek and Hayley. The EC means that the next several elections will be decided by a handful of low information voters in a handful of states. Most of those voters are not from a long line of college graduates. So, expect to see measures like this on one side and calls to close, defund, burn colleges on the other because they are Marxist camps and the enemy as JD now says in his stump speech.

Are we at the point in this thread where we’re acknowledging that donations in exchange for places at educational institutions is virtuous rather than inequitable? 😂

Americans are so broken by their relationship to money it’s bizarre to watch in real time.

Are we at the point where private universities are funded by money trees?

Funding universities is good.

Policies (like tax deductions) that encourage funding universities are good policies.

If people are more likely to donate money to universities because they hope it will get their kids in, then we can acknowledge that legacy admissions are good for universities.

Or we can close our eyes and pretend that universities are not very expensive undertakings.

[quote] Funding universities is good.

Yes but not in exchange for favours.

[quote] If people are more likely to donate money to universities because they hope it will get their kids in, then we can acknowledge that legacy admissions are good for universities.

No lol sorry.

Most decent western societies manage to do without it, why not here?

Your brain is so cooked by the normalization of political influence from corporations, wealthy people etc that you’ve gotten to the point where you think money is more virtuous than social equality.

Thank god. Now Sharquisha won't have her spot stolen from her.

R33 [quote] Funding universities is good.

This is no longer a shared truth. MAGA has convinced a lot of working class people that universities are the devil. Places where elites send their children to enter professions locked out to those who cannot afford an elite education. Then throw in nonsense about marxists, pedos and satan.

Progressives certainly cannot enter the ring and say 'how wonderful that the upper class wants to bond intergenerationally by donating more than you earn each year to a university in exchange for a place for their kid. We love to see it'

Progressives have to do something to offer an alternative to burn it down Trumpism.

36 posts before it becomes a Trump thread. You're slipping. You must have watched the debate last night.

[quote] Yes but not in exchange for favours.

Why not? It’s ok to donate for a tax deduction or for vanity (naming a building). It’s okay to prefer Johnny over Frank because Johnny plays lacrosse. It’s OK to give the benefit of the doubt to a poorly prepared student from a disadvantaged background who might need extra help. What is so dreadful about maintaining a preference in admissions for alumni children if it encourages alumni donations?

It’s not that you reject the idea that money is somehow “virtuous.” It’s that you think money is corrupting. That kind of attitude might be be defensible in a public university. In a private university, funded largely by donations, it is hypocritical and selfish.

What about preferential treatment for children of the faculty and staff? Also out?

[quote] a system that has clearly worked since the 60s.

The system that gave us elite Ivy grad George W. Bush? We can do without it.

[quote] It’s ok to donate for a tax deduction or for vanity (naming a building).

This actually shouldn’t be ok. People shouldn’t be donating on the condition of financial or vanity reward. Again, your brain is cooked by living in a hyper capitalist society all your life.

[quote] It’s okay to prefer Johnny over Frank because Johnny plays lacrosse.

Not a huge fan of athletic scholarships tbh but at least it’s a skill. Money from your parents isn’t a skill lol.

[quote] It’s OK to give the benefit of the doubt to a poorly prepared student from a disadvantaged background who might need extra help.

Absolutely, you’re getting warmer.

[quote] What is so dreadful about maintaining a preference in admissions for alumni children if it encourages alumni donations?

Colder :(

[quote] It’s that you think money is corrupting.

We’re talking about a situation where money is the corrupting force so yes lol. It’s fairly well understood that “money for favours” is corruption. Again, brain = cooked.

[quote] Most decent western societies manage to do without it, why not here?

American Universities are the envy of the world. Most of the most admired ones are private. You may be happier in a society where only public universities are allowed, and if that means the fascists or the communists or whatever comes next gets to impose their will on them for a decade or a century, oh well, that’s the price of “equality.” That’s not how America is organized, and we’ve done better that the rest of the world in terms of innovation and social mobility. I’ll take our system.

That’s not how America is organized, and we’ve done better that the rest of the world in terms of innovation and social mobility.

lol

[quote] I’ll take our system.

The system as it is is not working for most and the (misguided) rebellion gave us Trump and Vance and MGT and Mark Robinson.

The elite universities are also churning out way too many empty suits (at best) and sociopathic agitators (at worst) It's very difficult to mount a defence of the system when the most visible graduates of the Ivy league are tech bros, people with BS jobs and politicians using race and class warfare to install Donald Trump.

Install Donald Trump. Yeah. Universities and their faculty are MAGA hotbeds. LOL You gals are crazy.

I’m mixed on athletic preferences. My sister got into Yale because she was the top female high school rower in the nation. She was a straight A student, but her SAT was only 1220 (she didn’t prep for it and took it hungover).

However, she worked hard at rowing, so hard that she wrecked her back and ended up needing surgery. I’d say for that alone, that’s sufficient to offset her lower SAT score.

But she also happened to live geographically where she could do rowing when she was in high school. Most students don’t have access to places where they could row due to geographic limitations.

We had a privileged upper middle class upbringing, but she elected to go to her local crumby public high school that only had like a 60% graduation rate. Her school was kind of on the border between the nicer part of West Seattle and the ghetto part of West Seattle.

No R46 she gamed her way in. Speak truth to power.

R47, she wasn’t even planning on applying for Yale. They recruited her.

Like I said, a game.