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 affirmative action.
But some college counselors say the ban probably won’t make much difference.
“It’s not going to have as big an impact as people think it will. It’s more symbolic,” said Julio Mata, president of the Western Association for College Admission Counseling. “It might open up a few spots for regular students, but it won’t completely change the landscape.”
The new law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, prohibits California’s private colleges from giving admissions preference to students who have alumni or donor connections. The University of California banned the practice 25 years ago.
Assemblymember Phil Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco who co-authored the bill, said the new law will make the college admissions process “more fair and equitable.”
“Legacy admissions helps the students who least need it,” Ting said. “This country is supposed to be a meritocracy. Students who already have every advantage should not be taking spots away from students who’ve worked extra hard to get there.”
Inspired by Varsity Blues scandal
The law follows a similar bill from Ting that was set to expire this year. That law required California’s private colleges to publicly report how many legacy students they admitted, but it didn’t ban the practice.
Ting’s original bill was inspired by the Varsity Blues scandal that erupted in 2019, in which wealthy parents bribed consultants or coaches to get their children into elite colleges. In California, Stanford, USC, UC Berkeley and UCLA were all implicated.
Under the new law, which goes into effect September 2025, the state attorney general can take legal action against colleges that don’t comply, but at one point it would have gone a step further. In the original version, the bill called for hefty financial penalties for schools that violated the ban, but the bill’s sponsors dropped that provision after private colleges complained and it appeared the bill wouldn’t pass.
While the law isn’t perfect, it’s an important step toward leveling the playing field, Ting said.
“My hope is that the institutions follow the law. Not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law,” Ting said.
This country is supposed to be a meritocracy. Students who already have every advantage should not be taking spots away from students who’ve worked extra hard to get there.
But limited penalties and the fact that colleges self-report their data make the law much less effective, counselors said. Also, the admissions process at selective private universities is already so opaque and nuanced that connections often have limited pull, Mata and others said. University of Southern California, for example, gets 80,000 applications a year and admits an estimated 8,200. Even if every spot went to a child of alumni or donors, there wouldn’t be enough spots for everyone.
“‘Legacy’ was never a golden ticket,” Mata said. “It’s just one factor in admissions. And not every alumni or donor is going to be viewed with the same weight. Some are more notable than others.”
And it’s not clear whether colleges will comply. Some might be willing to risk a lawsuit or potentially lose state-provided financial aid in order to admit whomever they want. Many colleges said that legacy admissions were a crucial part of their fundraising efforts. When asked if Stanford plans to comply with the new law, a spokesperson said, “The legislation does not take effect until September 2025. During that time, Stanford will be continuing to review its admissions policies.”
Colleges and counselors said they hadn’t yet heard pushback from wealthy parents.
Stanford law professor Rick Banks said the new law is well intended, as legacy admissions overwhelmingly favor white and affluent students, but he still opposes it.
“Despite the unfairness of legacy preferences, private universities should be permitted to rely on them, as they are absolutely central to the fund-raising model on which universities rely,” Banks, a founder of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice, said in an interview on Stanford’s website.
When asked how he thought private colleges should respond to the law, he said they probably shouldn’t bother.
“I don’t know that universities need to challenge the ban, as there is no basis for actually enforcing it,” Banks said. “The law simply provides for a sort of moral shaming of universities, as those in violation of the law will have that fact publicized by the government.”
Adrian Navarro, a college and career advisor at Oakland Technical High School, said he was glad 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 was sort of swept under the rug,” Navarro said. “It’s gratifying to see some action for students who, due to historic inequities, don’t have the benefit of rich parents.”
Students would have been admitted anyway
Even though they fought the bill, some private colleges said they’d comply with the law and that it would make no difference in their admissions process because all their students meet the admissions criteria anyway. In general, private schools’ admission criteria is based on a slew of factors including academic achievement, leadership skills, ability to overcome challenges and how a student might benefit from opportunities at a particular school.
Still, six of California’s 90 private, nonprofit colleges said they admit hundreds of students a year based on alumni or donor connections, according to information they provided to the state. In fall 2023, USC admitted 1,791 students with alumni or donor connections. Stanford admitted 295. Santa Clara University admitted 38, but the previous year that number was 1,133. Harvey Mudd College, Claremont McKenna College and Northeastern University in Oakland also admitted at least one student with donor or alumni ties.
Those schools also point out that they admit large numbers of students who are the first in their families to attend college, and they’re committed to creating diverse student bodies despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling banning affirmative action.
“All admitted students meet our high academic standards through a contextualized holistic review 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 fulfill the commitments of our unifying values,” USC spokesperson Lauren Bartlett said in an email.
Richard Turner, a Stanford graduate who lives in Piedmont in the East Bay, said he was upset when affirmative action ended because he feels racism remains a systemic problem in the U.S. But he had mixed feelings when legacy admissions ended. As an African American parent, he was hoping his daughters would benefit from one, if not both, of the policies.
“Legacy admissions perpetuates privilege,” said Turner, a physician. “But on the other hand, we all know connections are vitally important. Would I have used every advantage I have to get my daughters admitted? Yes, I absolutely would.”
Neither of his daughters ended up at Stanford, which he was disappointed about. But they both did well at their chosen schools, he said.
‘It should be fair’
Daniel Alfaro, a senior at Oakland Tech High School, said he’s happy the state stopped legacy admissions. Colleges should admit students solely based on their capabilities, he said, “not because of who their parents are.”
Alfaro’s own parents aren’t able to help him much with his college applications. Immigrants from Latin America, they work long hours, have limited English skills and not much education themselves. But he said they’ve always encouraged him to study hard and pursue higher education.
Alfaro said he’s eager to make them proud. He’s taking three advanced placement classes this year, is playing two sports and is taking French, economics and political science at a local community college. He’s also active in the Latino Student Union and Key Club. He said he often stays 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 for my family, they’ve made so many sacrifices so we could go to college. So for me, it all comes down to this moment. And it should be fair.”
