Stay informed with free information sessions on topics that matter to all Californians. Subscribe to CalMatters today to get nonprofit news delivered to your inbox.

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 per year and admits about 8,200. Even if every spot went to the child of an alumnus or donor, there would be no not enough places 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. »