When California banned private colleges from favoring the children of donors and alumni in the admissions process, it intended to help level the playing field for prospective students after the Supreme Court ended to positive discrimination.

But some university advisers say the ban probably won’t make much difference.

“It won’t have as big an impact as people think. It’s more symbolic,” said Julio Mata, president of the Western Association for College Admission Counseling. “This might free up some places for regular students, but it won’t completely change the landscape. »

The new law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, prohibits private colleges in California from giving admissions preference to students who have relationships with alumni or donors. The University of California banned the practice 25 years ago.

Assemblyman Phil Ting, a San Francisco Democrat who co-authored the bill, said the new law will make the college admissions process “more fair and equitable.”

“Old Admissions helps students who need it the least,” Ting said. “This country is supposed to be a meritocracy. Students who already have every advantage should not take places away from those who have worked very hard to get there.

Inspired by the Varsity Blues scandal

The law follows a similar bill by Ting that was set to expire this year. This law required private colleges in California to publicly report the number of students they had admitted, but it did not prohibit the practice.

Ting’s original bill was inspired by the Varsity Blues scandal that broke in 2019, in which wealthy parents bribed consultants or coaches to get their children into elite universities. In California, Stanford, USC, UC Berkeley and UCLA were all involved.

Under the new law, which takes effect in September 2025, the state attorney general can take legal action against colleges that don’t comply, but at some point it would have gone further. In the original version, the bill included heavy financial penalties for schools that violated the ban, but the bill’s sponsors dropped that provision after private colleges complained and it appeared that the bill law would not be adopted.

Although the law is not perfect, it is an important step toward equal opportunity, Ting said.

“My hope is that institutions respect the law. Not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law,” Ting said.

But limited penalties and the fact that colleges self-report their data make the law much less effective, advisers said. Additionally, the admissions process at selective private universities is already so opaque and nuanced that connections often have limited impact, Mata and others said. The University of Southern California, for example, receives 80,000 applications a year and admits about 8,200. Even if every spot went to a child of alumni or donors, there wouldn’t be enough spots for everyone.

“‘Legacy’ has never been a golden ticket,” Mata said. “It’s just one factor in admissions. And not every alumni or donor will be considered with the same weight. Some are more remarkable than others.

And it’s unclear whether colleges will comply. Some might be willing to risk a lawsuit or lose state-provided financial assistance to admit who they want. Many colleges have said legacy admissions are a crucial part of their fundraising efforts. When asked if Stanford plans to comply with the new law, a spokesperson said: “The legislation will not take effect until September 2025. During this time, Stanford will continue to review its policies admission. »

Colleges and counselors said they have yet to hear resistance from wealthy parents.

Rick Banks, a law professor at Stanford, said the new law is well-intentioned, as traditional admissions overwhelmingly favors white and affluent students, but he still opposes it.

“Despite the injustice of legacy preferences, private universities should be allowed to rely on them, because they are absolutely essential to the fundraising model that universities rely on,” said Banks, founder of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice, in a press release. interview on the Stanford website.

When asked how he thought private colleges should respond to the law, he said they probably shouldn’t worry about it.

“I don’t think universities need to challenge this ban because there is no basis for actually enforcing it,” Banks said. “The law simply provides a kind of moral shame for universities, because those who break the law will have this fact made public by the government. »

Adrian Navarro, a college and career counselor at Oakland Technical High School, said he was happy to hear about the law because “anything that opens up opportunities for our students, for different communities, is great.”

“I felt like the Varsity Blues scandal had kind of been swept under the rug,” Navarro said. “It is gratifying to see action on behalf of students who, due to historical inequities, do not enjoy the advantages of wealthy parents. »

The students would have been admitted anyway

Although they opposed the bill, some private colleges said they would comply with the law and that it would make no difference to their admissions process since all of their students met the college requirements anyway. admission. In general, private school admissions criteria are based on a multitude of factors, including academic achievement, leadership skills, the ability to overcome challenges, and how a student might benefit from the opportunities offered at a particular school.

Yet six of California’s 90 private, nonprofit colleges said they admit hundreds of students a year based on relationships with alumni or donors, according to information they provided to the ‘State. In fall 2023, USC admitted 1,791 students with alumni or donor ties. Stanford admitted 295. Santa Clara University admitted 38, but the year before that number was 1,133. Harvey Mudd College, Claremont McKenna College and Northeastern University in Oakland also admitted to the least one student with ties to donors or alumni.

These schools also emphasize that they admit large numbers of students who are the first in their families to attend college and that they are committed to creating diverse student bodies despite the Supreme Court ruling of the year last prohibiting positive discrimination.

University of Southern California student Manqi Cai poses for a photo during a “Trojan Family Graduate Celebration” hosted by USC, which previously canceled its main stage commencement ceremony at amid pro-Palestinian protests, at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in Los Angeles on May 9. 2024.

(

Photo by Carlin Stiehl

/

Reuters

)

“All admitted students meet our high academic standards through a contextualized holistic assessment that values ​​each student’s lived experience, considers how they will contribute to the vibrancy of our campus, thrive in our community, benefit from a USC education and will fulfill the commitments of our unifying commitment. values,” USC spokeswoman Lauren Bartlett said in an email.

Richard Turner, a Stanford graduate living in Piedmont in the East Bay, said he was upset about the end of affirmative action because he believes racism remains a systemic problem in the United States. But he had mixed feelings when the admissions ended. As an African-American parent, he hoped his daughters would benefit from one, if not both, of these policies.

“Legacy admissions perpetuate privilege,” said Turner, a physician. “But on the other hand, we all know that connections are vitally important. Would I have used every advantage I had to get my daughters admitted? Yes, I absolutely would.

None of his daughters ended up at Stanford, which disappointed him. But they both did well at their chosen schools, he said.

“It should be right”

Daniel Alfaro, a senior at Oakland Tech High School, said he was glad the state ended legacy admissions. Colleges should admit students based solely on their abilities, he said, “not based on who their parents are.”

Alfaro’s own parents are not able to help him much with his college applications. Immigrants from Latin America, they work long hours, have limited English skills and are poorly educated themselves. But he said they always encouraged him to study hard and pursue higher education.

Alfaro said he can’t wait to make them proud. He’s taking three Advanced Placement classes this year, playing two sports and taking French, economics and political science classes at a local community college. He is also active in the Latino Student Union and the Key Club. He said he often stayed up until 3 a.m. studying to maintain a near-perfect grade point average.

“Education is a privilege,” said Alfaro, who hopes to study biotechnology or kinesiology in college. “I feel like my family sacrificed so much so that we could go to college. So for me it all comes down to this moment. And that should be right.