7 ms·

I get annoyed by legacy admissions as much as the next guy, but this strikes me as problematic. An institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fund

I get annoyed by legacy admissions as much as the next guy, but this strikes me as problematic. An institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fundamental to their right to exist. Especially when the whole point of a "private" university is their exclusivity. Not only that they will lose their appeal in the first place, this has the potential to really mess up their endowments. It's an ironic problem because California's public colleges already have an exclusivity problem.

Zigurd 2y ago
If private universities are doing actual important research, it's government funded. This is a reasonable condition of funding. Your other point is valid though: Public universities could set an example and compete more effectively for students who would otherwise go to a private university by increasing capacity.
- vineyardmike 2y ago
  > If private universities are doing actual important research, it's government funded. This is a reasonable condition of funding. Sure, but most of that research is done by actual employees, who were (presumably) already hired in line with hiring law. > Public universities could set an example and compete more effectively for students who would otherwise go to a private university by increasing capacity. This is certainly already the case. UC's are way bigger than private schools, and already some of the best schools in the nation. Could be even bigger, I guess.
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    Grants fund research. These usually come from government agencies. If you are good at this, you don't have to teach undergrads because you already bring in $$$, and your grad students are cheap labor. Universities take a cut of grants for overhead. It is a substantial source of funding.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fundamental to their right to exist Private universities enjoy tremendous benefits on account of their public benefits. If they want to have virtual sovereignty in how they admit students, they should be taxed and regulated like any other business.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  legister is claiming this essentially threatens the existence of Stanford in something like it’s current form. Whether that’s true can certainly be debated, but it seems glib to say “if Stanford has to be crushed or radically transformed, so be it; nothing is more important than government-style admission procedures”. I think one needs to actually argue that it won’t be that damaging.
- legitster 2y ago
  Not sure if I understand the argument - private universities are still non-profit organizations and wouldn't be subject to business taxes. If anything, non-profits generally have less responsibility. The Anti-Defamation League should not be forced to admit anti-Semites. You wouldn't expect Planned Parenthood to be forced to admit anti-abortion providers.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > private universities are still non-profit organizations and wouldn't be subject to business taxes Charities have to disclose quid pro quo contributions in a way universities do not [1]. That's before we get to the favourable land use, permitting and employment protections (see: grad students) universities enjoy, or the student financial aid grants California provides private-university students or research grants and contracts it gives it. > Anti-Defamation League should not be forced to admit anti-Semites You're conflating being forced to admit people with certain characteristics with a ban on considering certain characteristics during admission. Very different. The analog would be the ADL not being allowed to ask applicants about their views on anti-Semitism, which is significantly less oppressive than what you suggest. [1] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contributions-quid-pro-quo-contributions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
bluGill 2y ago
There are a lot of private universities most nobody cares about. Without looking it up what is your opinion of Drake university? I'm sore most of us the answer is 'who'. (i hadn't heard of them either until I moved nearby. they claim they are great but who knows - not me) most of us have heard good things about stanford. They won't lose any reputation because that isn't what it is built on. Drake isn't in california but even if they were not being on this list (if they are not I don't know) wouldn't make anyone not go.
alephnerd 2y ago
> Especially when the whole point of a "private" university is their exclusivity. Not only that they will lose their appeal in the first place, this has the potential to really mess up their endowments. Tell that to MIT or CMU - both of whom do NOT accept legacy admissions on principle (George Eastman and Andrew Carnegie being self made men). They're both doing fine.
whyenot 2y ago
> It's an ironic problem because California's public colleges already have an exclusivity problem. Can you please go into a little more detail about the irony you see, because as someone who works at a public university, it's not obvious to me.
- legitster 2y ago
  UC Berkley and UCLA for example have ridiculously low admittance percentages. These are public universities, but you are still more likely to get into a private university, legacy admissions or not.
  - anon291 2y ago
    That's ... fine. Any California grade with a certain GPA is guaranteed admission into the UC system, which is well-regarded on its own.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwup238 2y ago
They’re tax exempt organizations. I don’t think they have a “right to exist” nor to have absolute control of association just like we don’t allow their directors to self deal. They are allowed to exist because they provide the public a benefit, which is degraded by legacy admissions depriving the deserving members of the general public of those slots.
- seneca 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    Institutions, as legal entities, are created by government regulations. In the absence of such regulations, all organizations would be based on voluntary contracts between private individuals. And the people forming the organization, regardless of whether you call them members, shareholders, or trustees, would ultimately be fully responsible for the actions of the organization.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    Your reply is reductive: Stanford is not some run-of-the-mill LLC - they have a charter legislated into state law, granting privileges not given(!) to most other self-organized groups in the state. Saying this is not authoritarian - that's just stating historical fact. You and a few billionaire friends can't incorporate, buy land and automatically have the legal cover that Stanford has; so no, Stanford has no right to exist in it's current, highly privileged form
  - throwup238 2y ago
    They're tax exempt. If they want to throw off the yoke of so-called authoritarianism, they're free to reincorporate as public benefit corporations and pay taxes on all the capital they've been hoarding.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Seems like the public benefit is clear. The benefit provided by a non-profit need not be available to all. In fact, they are allowed to be extremely exclusive. Why should private schools be treated different?
kristopolous 2y ago
The students are people who work really hard and those who were born right. That second group, why are they there? Let's not let some abstract amorphous principle about some legal fiction prevent us from fixing things.
- TacticalCoder 2y ago
  > The students are people who work really hard and those who were born right. You forgot the third group: those that got a free pass due to diversity hiring. These didn't need to work hard at all.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    That's not how this works at all. Do you think someone with a 2.5 GPA in high-school and not much else outside that is getting into Harvard because they're hispanic or whatever? They're sitting on a stack of applicants to the ceiling of 4.2 GPAs and good looking extracurriculars and volunteer work of all backgrounds. Literally all of them meeting the bar to be successful at $PrestigiousUniversity. Affirmative action is choosing how to pick from that stack.
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      And it turns out that if you use race to choose who to pick from that stack it's a blatant violation of the civil rights act of 1964.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        According to the same jurists who gutted that civil rights act.
      - Spivak 2y ago
        Not saying it isn't, am saying that nobody is getting a free pass. But taking a step back, folks aren't really that opposed to "positive discrimination" when forced to actually reveal their preferences. We call positive sexism is chivalry, and positive racism affirmative action and it's broadly supported. The population most strongly opposed to positive racism are people who want or are indifferent to negative racism so it's hard to know how to read that.
cortesoft 2y ago
They are still free to choose their membership however they want. The ‘punishment’ for breaking this law is to be listed on a website, so no one is stopping these schools from doing whatever they want, they will just be on a public list.
bjourne 2y ago
> I get annoyed by legacy admissions as much as the next guy, but this strikes me as problematic. An institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fundamental to their right to exist. Eh, it's pretty fundamental to KKK's right to exist! Businesses (e.g., US colleges) have to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts which curtail what they can set as their selection criteria.
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  Title VII has nothing to do with legacy admissions.
- legitster 2y ago
  Civil Rights Act only excludes discrimination against protected statuses. Organization legacies are not one of them.
  - bjourne 2y ago
    Read up on disparate impact. It could very well be argued that legacy admission is effectively ethnic discrimination.
mayneack 2y ago
IANAL, but this is from the linked bill text: > (2) “Independent institution of higher education” means a nonpublic higher education institution that grants undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, that is formed as a nonprofit corporation in this state, that is accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education, and that receives, or benefits from, state-funded student financial assistance or that enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1780&showamends=false https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x... Seems like an institution is free to be fully private (not take state funded financial aid) and do whatever they want.
- legitster 2y ago
  That's kind of a weird distinction because my understanding is that the Cal Grants go to the student. The intent of the program is that it goes to the student's choice of qualifying institution. The state is free to rewrite their eligibility requirements however they want. I'm not sure if the intended outcome here is that Standford stops accepting low income students on financial assistance.
- Duwensatzaj 2y ago
  For example, Hillsdale College and Grove City College do not accept government financial support so they're not bound by various legal requirements.
cherryteastain 2y ago
Every private university takes tons of public cash for research. The most prestigious and exclusive private universities take the greatest amount public research funding. If an institution wants to play the "but we're private!" card, I'd say let them, but only if it means they are not eligible for public research funding.
- Maxion 2y ago
  It's not the universities that apply for research funding, and then build basketball courts. Researchers themselves write and apply for grants, and the grants are for the researchers. The money goes to them and their research, not the university.
  - mukara 2y ago
    For each $1 of federal research funding, the university can take a cut of as much as $0.6 owing to the fact that researchers are using university facilities and admin staff. In fact, the money itself is not even managed by the recipient researchers themselves. The university manages the funds since they use them to pay the professors, grad students, etc.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    And if that research was happening at another university, it would still happen - but the benefits of being involved in it (or even being around it) would be spread out more evenly.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I tend to agree. There is a lot that occurs in the private sphere that should be free of governmental influence, even if the consensus is that it would be better for society if they were organized or behaved in a different way.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
danans 2y ago
> I get annoyed by legacy admissions as much as the next guy, but this strikes me as problematic. An institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fundamental to their right to exist. > Especially when the whole point of a "private" university is their exclusivity. MIT is a private university that does not do legacy admissions, yet it has no problem maintaining its existence or its exclusivity.
dangitman 2y ago
[dead]
bedhead 2y ago
Now apply this to every private business and their hiring practices and let me know how things shake out and whether people are happy about the results.

Zigurd 2y ago

If private universities are doing actual important research, it's government funded. This is a reasonable condition of funding. Your other point is valid though: Public universities could set an example and compete more effectively for students who would otherwise go to a private university by increasing capacity.

vineyardmike 2y ago
> If private universities are doing actual important research, it's government funded. This is a reasonable condition of funding. Sure, but most of that research is done by actual employees, who were (presumably) already hired in line with hiring law. > Public universities could set an example and compete more effectively for students who would otherwise go to a private university by increasing capacity. This is certainly already the case. UC's are way bigger than private schools, and already some of the best schools in the nation. Could be even bigger, I guess.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  Grants fund research. These usually come from government agencies. If you are good at this, you don't have to teach undergrads because you already bring in $$$, and your grad students are cheap labor. Universities take a cut of grants for overhead. It is a substantial source of funding.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fundamental to their right to exist Private universities enjoy tremendous benefits on account of their public benefits. If they want to have virtual sovereignty in how they admit students, they should be taxed and regulated like any other business.

jessriedel 2y ago
legister is claiming this essentially threatens the existence of Stanford in something like it’s current form. Whether that’s true can certainly be debated, but it seems glib to say “if Stanford has to be crushed or radically transformed, so be it; nothing is more important than government-style admission procedures”. I think one needs to actually argue that it won’t be that damaging.
legitster 2y ago
Not sure if I understand the argument - private universities are still non-profit organizations and wouldn't be subject to business taxes. If anything, non-profits generally have less responsibility. The Anti-Defamation League should not be forced to admit anti-Semites. You wouldn't expect Planned Parenthood to be forced to admit anti-abortion providers.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > private universities are still non-profit organizations and wouldn't be subject to business taxes Charities have to disclose quid pro quo contributions in a way universities do not [1]. That's before we get to the favourable land use, permitting and employment protections (see: grad students) universities enjoy, or the student financial aid grants California provides private-university students or research grants and contracts it gives it. > Anti-Defamation League should not be forced to admit anti-Semites You're conflating being forced to admit people with certain characteristics with a ban on considering certain characteristics during admission. Very different. The analog would be the ADL not being allowed to ask applicants about their views on anti-Semitism, which is significantly less oppressive than what you suggest. [1] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contributions-quid-pro-quo-contributions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

bluGill 2y ago

There are a lot of private universities most nobody cares about. Without looking it up what is your opinion of Drake university? I'm sore most of us the answer is 'who'. (i hadn't heard of them either until I moved nearby. they claim they are great but who knows - not me) most of us have heard good things about stanford. They won't lose any reputation because that isn't what it is built on. Drake isn't in california but even if they were not being on this list (if they are not I don't know) wouldn't make anyone not go.

alephnerd 2y ago

> Especially when the whole point of a "private" university is their exclusivity. Not only that they will lose their appeal in the first place, this has the potential to really mess up their endowments. Tell that to MIT or CMU - both of whom do NOT accept legacy admissions on principle (George Eastman and Andrew Carnegie being self made men). They're both doing fine.

whyenot 2y ago

> It's an ironic problem because California's public colleges already have an exclusivity problem. Can you please go into a little more detail about the irony you see, because as someone who works at a public university, it's not obvious to me.

legitster 2y ago
UC Berkley and UCLA for example have ridiculously low admittance percentages. These are public universities, but you are still more likely to get into a private university, legacy admissions or not.
- anon291 2y ago
  That's ... fine. Any California grade with a certain GPA is guaranteed admission into the UC system, which is well-regarded on its own.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throwup238 2y ago

They’re tax exempt organizations. I don’t think they have a “right to exist” nor to have absolute control of association just like we don’t allow their directors to self deal. They are allowed to exist because they provide the public a benefit, which is degraded by legacy admissions depriving the deserving members of the general public of those slots.

seneca 2y ago
[flagged]
- jltsiren 2y ago
  Institutions, as legal entities, are created by government regulations. In the absence of such regulations, all organizations would be based on voluntary contracts between private individuals. And the people forming the organization, regardless of whether you call them members, shareholders, or trustees, would ultimately be fully responsible for the actions of the organization.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  Your reply is reductive: Stanford is not some run-of-the-mill LLC - they have a charter legislated into state law, granting privileges not given(!) to most other self-organized groups in the state. Saying this is not authoritarian - that's just stating historical fact. You and a few billionaire friends can't incorporate, buy land and automatically have the legal cover that Stanford has; so no, Stanford has no right to exist in it's current, highly privileged form
- throwup238 2y ago
  They're tax exempt. If they want to throw off the yoke of so-called authoritarianism, they're free to reincorporate as public benefit corporations and pay taxes on all the capital they've been hoarding.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Seems like the public benefit is clear. The benefit provided by a non-profit need not be available to all. In fact, they are allowed to be extremely exclusive. Why should private schools be treated different?

kristopolous 2y ago

The students are people who work really hard and those who were born right. That second group, why are they there? Let's not let some abstract amorphous principle about some legal fiction prevent us from fixing things.

TacticalCoder 2y ago
> The students are people who work really hard and those who were born right. You forgot the third group: those that got a free pass due to diversity hiring. These didn't need to work hard at all.
- Spivak 2y ago
  That's not how this works at all. Do you think someone with a 2.5 GPA in high-school and not much else outside that is getting into Harvard because they're hispanic or whatever? They're sitting on a stack of applicants to the ceiling of 4.2 GPAs and good looking extracurriculars and volunteer work of all backgrounds. Literally all of them meeting the bar to be successful at $PrestigiousUniversity. Affirmative action is choosing how to pick from that stack.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    And it turns out that if you use race to choose who to pick from that stack it's a blatant violation of the civil rights act of 1964.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      According to the same jurists who gutted that civil rights act.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Not saying it isn't, am saying that nobody is getting a free pass. But taking a step back, folks aren't really that opposed to "positive discrimination" when forced to actually reveal their preferences. We call positive sexism is chivalry, and positive racism affirmative action and it's broadly supported. The population most strongly opposed to positive racism are people who want or are indifferent to negative racism so it's hard to know how to read that.

cortesoft 2y ago

They are still free to choose their membership however they want. The ‘punishment’ for breaking this law is to be listed on a website, so no one is stopping these schools from doing whatever they want, they will just be on a public list.

bjourne 2y ago

> I get annoyed by legacy admissions as much as the next guy, but this strikes me as problematic. An institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fundamental to their right to exist. Eh, it's pretty fundamental to KKK's right to exist! Businesses (e.g., US colleges) have to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts which curtail what they can set as their selection criteria.

NotYourLawyer 2y ago
Title VII has nothing to do with legacy admissions.
legitster 2y ago
Civil Rights Act only excludes discrimination against protected statuses. Organization legacies are not one of them.
- bjourne 2y ago
  Read up on disparate impact. It could very well be argued that legacy admission is effectively ethnic discrimination.

mayneack 2y ago

IANAL, but this is from the linked bill text: > (2) “Independent institution of higher education” means a nonpublic higher education institution that grants undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, that is formed as a nonprofit corporation in this state, that is accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education, and that receives, or benefits from, state-funded student financial assistance or that enrolls students who receive state-funded student financial assistance. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1780&showamends=false https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x... Seems like an institution is free to be fully private (not take state funded financial aid) and do whatever they want.

legitster 2y ago
That's kind of a weird distinction because my understanding is that the Cal Grants go to the student. The intent of the program is that it goes to the student's choice of qualifying institution. The state is free to rewrite their eligibility requirements however they want. I'm not sure if the intended outcome here is that Standford stops accepting low income students on financial assistance.
Duwensatzaj 2y ago
For example, Hillsdale College and Grove City College do not accept government financial support so they're not bound by various legal requirements.

cherryteastain 2y ago

Every private university takes tons of public cash for research. The most prestigious and exclusive private universities take the greatest amount public research funding. If an institution wants to play the "but we're private!" card, I'd say let them, but only if it means they are not eligible for public research funding.

Maxion 2y ago
It's not the universities that apply for research funding, and then build basketball courts. Researchers themselves write and apply for grants, and the grants are for the researchers. The money goes to them and their research, not the university.
- mukara 2y ago
  For each $1 of federal research funding, the university can take a cut of as much as $0.6 owing to the fact that researchers are using university facilities and admin staff. In fact, the money itself is not even managed by the recipient researchers themselves. The university manages the funds since they use them to pay the professors, grad students, etc.
- int_19h 2y ago
  And if that research was happening at another university, it would still happen - but the benefits of being involved in it (or even being around it) would be spread out more evenly.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I tend to agree. There is a lot that occurs in the private sphere that should be free of governmental influence, even if the consensus is that it would be better for society if they were organized or behaved in a different way.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

danans 2y ago

> I get annoyed by legacy admissions as much as the next guy, but this strikes me as problematic. An institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fundamental to their right to exist. > Especially when the whole point of a "private" university is their exclusivity. MIT is a private university that does not do legacy admissions, yet it has no problem maintaining its existence or its exclusivity.

dangitman 2y ago

[dead]

bedhead 2y ago

Now apply this to every private business and their hiring practices and let me know how things shake out and whether people are happy about the results.