ADVERTISEMENT

International

California Ends Legacy and Donor Admissions at Private Universities

Gavin Newsom. (Bloomberg/Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloo)

(Bloomberg) -- California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law banning legacy preferences at private universities, joining a budding movement to end a longstanding practice giving the children of alumni and donors a leg up in the college admissions process. 

The new law, which will apply to schools including Stanford University and the University of Southern California starting next September, makes the state the second to halt legacy admissions at private colleges. Maryland adopted a similar measure earlier this year, while Colorado, Illinois, and Virginia have barred the practice at public universities. 

“In California, everyone should be able to get ahead through merit, skill, and hard work,” Newsom said in a statement. “The California Dream shouldn’t be accessible to just a lucky few, which is why we’re opening the door to higher education wide enough for everyone, fairly.”

The legacy bans are picking up some momentum amid a broader revamp of US college admissions following a Supreme Court decision last year that prohibited schools from considering race in deciding which students to accept. Only a handful of selective private colleges have banned the practice themselves, including Amherst College, Wesleyan University and Johns Hopkins University.

In response to the court ruling, California Assemblymember Phil Ting, who authored the bill on legacy preferences, arguing that “wealth or relationships” shouldn’t play a role in college admissions, either. 

“If we value diversity in higher education, we must level the playing field,” Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco, said in an email. “Hard work, good grades and a well-rounded background should earn you a spot in the incoming class – not the size of the check your family can write or who you’re related to.”

US colleges have on relied donations from alumni, saying contributions enable them to provide greater financial aid to students in need. Financial penalties for institutions that violate the ban were removed from an earlier draft version of the California bill. Stanford with an almost $37 billion endowment, ranks as the fourth-richest US college, while USC’s endowment stands at almost $8 billion.

The public University of California system eliminated legacy preferences in 1998. The California State University, which is also public, system doesn’t give special consideration to legacy applicants, either.

Legacy Enrollment 

At both Stanford and USC, about 14% of incoming students had family ties to alumni or donors, according to enrollment data for last year’s fall semester. The schools are among the state’s most selective, with Stanford accepting about 3.9% of applicants for its first-year class in 2023 and USC admitting about 9.9%.  

Stanford, in a statement on Monday, said it would continue reviewing its admissions policies over the next year, before the new rule takes effect. USC said it will comply with the law, while maintaining its academic standards and “holistic” approach, which takes into account each student’s experiences and potential contribution to campus life.

Many private schools already have gift policies that address equity and conflict-of-interest concerns, said Kristen Soares, president of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, which opposed the legacy bill. She said private institutions will “work faithfully to meet the implementation date,” adding that she didn’t expect the law to affect fundraising efforts.  

“We do not see compelling evidence that donations to institutions correlate to admissions review,” Soares said in a statement. “As private institutions, we’re uncomfortable with the state dictating admission practices in our institutions and the potential precedent it sets.”

In 2019, both Stanford and USC were ensnared in a sweeping US college admissions scandal, dubbed Varsity Blues. In the case, which wasn’t focused on legacy admissions, parents and others were accused of paying bribes to win admission for children, giving cash to test-takers to help students cheat on entrance exams and paying coaches to designate applicants as athletic recruits. 

(Updates with USC comment in 10th paragraph.)

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.