This fall, Menlo juniors applying to private colleges and universities in California will encounter a different playing field than those before them. In September 2024, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 1780, which will prohibit California private colleges and universities from giving special consideration to students in the class of 2026 and forward with personal connections to the school. However, it is unclear whether the ban will have the desired effect given the lack of any financial penalty.
Criticized as “affirmative action for the privileged,” by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the new law ended a nearly one-hundred-year-old practice of legacy admissions following a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the consideration of race in admissions. CalMatters attributed a drop in underrepresented groups enrolling at private California colleges in 2024 to the Court’s decision. For example, at Stanford University, Black enrollees declined from 9 percent before the ruling to 5 percent the next year.
Legacy preferences were eliminated in the University of California system in 1998, two years after California voters eliminated affirmative action in California public universities under Proposition 209. But many prestigious California private universities — such as Stanford and USC — continued to consider legacy as one factor in admissions. Given the number of Menlo families with ties to Stanford — which admitted 295 students with legacy connections in 2023, according to CalMatters — the legacy ban will likely affect prospective Menlo students hoping to apply there.
Junior Claire Dickman, who has no legacy connection to a private California university, sees legacy admission as inequitable and hopes that the ban will increase the amount of merit-based admissions. “I wouldn’t want to go to
a school just because of something my parents did; I would want them to take me because of my accomplishments,” Dickman said.
Before the law, Dickman felt disadvantaged by California private school legacy and donor preferences and found the practice demotivating. “It’s hard going to school every day, working as hard as you can and putting in all that effort, and then seeing [students in older grades] get [into] one of those great schools just because of their parents,” she said. “I’m obviously happy for them, but I wish we all started on the same ground.”
Dickman also believes that the pressure stemming from having a parent with a prestigious alma mater can cloud a student’s judgment in choosing a school. “If you’re trying to go to a school because your parents went there, you’re going for the wrong reasons. You should be going to a school because it’s going to be a good fit and […] if you have that in mind, then legacy shouldn’t matter,” Dickman said.
Despite having a legacy connection to Stanford, junior Connor Burks is also optimistic about the ban. He hopes it will now prompt students to seek out schools that best fit them as well as open doors for students who previously lacked the edge legacy provided. “Especially in our area, given how many people go to Stanford, for example, [and] considering how much that is probably guided by their parents’ experiences, I feel this will give people who do have legacy freedom to not feel that pressure,” Burks said.
However, though Burks hopes the legacy ban will have positive effects, he understands some students’ disappointment. “I know a lot of people who have legacy who are kind of frustrated with [the ban] just because they feel the pressure to follow in their parents’ footsteps and [now] it’s more difficult,” he said.
Burks also believes that colleges will find ways to circumvent the new law. “People who have these donations or have legacy will still likely have some amount of advantage in the admissions process; even if it’s much less severe [than previously], because of the change, colleges will work harder to disguise how that process happens in admissions,” Burks said.
Historically used to exclude immigrant populations from attending elite universities, according to the Brooking Institute, schools now use legacy admissions for fundraising and community building. “Legacy admissions have historically been one way families have maintained a multi-generational connection to an institution, and for many, that tradition holds deep sentimental value,” Lisa Giarratano, Menlo’s director of college counseling, said.
The Brookings Institute reports that eliminating legacy in admissions could decrease alumni donations and engagement in schools that utilize this factor. Giarratano understands why schools would be reluctant to eliminate the practice. “Colleges are businesses, and they’re trying to survive,” Giarratano said. “I don’t cast moral judgment too much on what colleges decide to do, but what I hope to do at Menlo is understand how the colleges are going to behave and then guide students appropriately towards or away from applying to certain colleges.”
It remains to be seen how effective the California law will be given the lack of financial penalty for non-compliance. Schools that violate the law would be listed on the CA Department of Justice website, but do not have to pay any fines or penalties. Similar bills in other states take a more punitive approach. The Fair College Admissions Act, a recently-introduced New York bill, would impose a penalty of up to $50,000 on any institution that considers legacy in admissions, with the funds directed towards a tuition assistance program for low-income students.
Giarratano believes that California’s private colleges will likely see the ban as the “spirit of the law” rather than fully changing their practices around legacy and donor preference. “There’s no real punishment either, except for maybe a little bit of public shaming, and maybe a loss of funding,” Giarratano said. “I would imagine a lot of colleges would be willing to kind of take that on the chin in order to continue to run their admissions offices the way they want to.”
