California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1780 into law on Sept. 30, prohibiting legacy admissions based on family relations or large donors at nonprofit and private universities. This legislation, written by California State Assemblymember Phil Ting, follows Congress’ affirmative action ban last year, which eliminated race-based admissions to college.
With this, California will join Colorado, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia in taking action to help disbar legacy admissions, making admissions decisions based on a holistic review of students’ applications instead. The bill will take effect on Sept. 1, 2025, and impact students applying from the Class of 2026 onwards. Top colleges like Stanford University and the University of Southern California, yielding around a 14% acceptance rate for legacy students, will also be impacted.
MVHS 21’ alum and Stanford University student Devin Gupta, who disagrees with legacy admissions, says that when he was a senior in high school, he applied to Cornell University — his father’s alma mater. Gupta was thrilled when he was accepted as he had an affinity towards the school because his dad had attended the institution and he heard many stories about his dad’s experiences there. However, his acceptance of Stanford pushed him to reject Cornell’s offer. Thus, Gupta believes his negative position on legacy admissions isn’t dependent on the fact that he is not a legacy admit, but rather because he finds it unfair.
“I think that legacy admissions, as a policy, are now somewhat outdated because there are so many other ways to tell how smart and capable a student is, as opposed to just the lineage of their family,” Gupta said.
College and Career Counselor Rogelio Calderon agrees that legacy admissions benefit a small minority of students at the expense of others who don’t have the same access to these resources. According to Calderon, while the bill will not affect too many students since the University of California system has banned legacy admissions since 1998, he still believes it is a step in the right direction.
“I don’t believe legacy admissions are a fair way to admit a student into an institution because it essentially admits students based on a potential status,” Calderon said. “Most students don’t have the capability or are not fortunate to have it. I think most of the admissions process is really based on a student’s merit and academics. Legacy admissions, in a way, don’t honor that.”
According to an article released by the Daily Princetonian last year, legacy admits overall had higher SAT scores and GPAs, with 5.5% more legacy students scoring higher than 1550 on the SAT, and over 15% more legacy students than non-legacy graduating with a GPA of 3.7 or above. Senior Elisabeth Vicchrilli finds faults in this, attributing statistics like this to legacy supporters. She believes that many times, these admits come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and can afford better tutoring services. Thus, she remains partially skeptical of how AB 1780 will go into effect, especially due to many of the advantages legacy students have other than direct donations or family connections.
“I do wonder how you quantify legacy admissions,” Vicchrilli said. “There’s not really a back door into the admissions process of someone being like, ‘Wow, their parents donated buildings, so we have to let them in.’ There is still that correlation, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the cause of a lot of these people being admitted. It’s what the legacy means in terms of money and the backing that they can get to then do better on the SAT and in academic settings. I’m sure there are other merit-based reasons that the student got in. So I’m curious how they would try and establish that.”
Overall, Gupta acknowledges that legacy admissions are somewhat of a “necessary evil,” making a point that there has to be a balance between having admissions based on major donors versus students with excellent qualifications. The tension between these two aspects is even more difficult when donations from legacy students could indirectly benefit students who need financial aid.
“I think that one of the things to consider when you consider the nuance of legacy admissions is the trade-off: Would you accept 10 people who are paying no tuition or need full financial aid in exchange for one legacy admitted person, who is generally a pretty talented kid, especially the ones that Stanford admits?” Gupta said. “Or would you ban this legacy admissions policy and have everyone pay some tuition? A lot of financial aid money at Stanford comes from legacy admissions like donations, grants and endowments. It’s part of the nuances — would you make that trade-off? And to what extent are you willing to make that trade-off?”
The long-reaching impacts of AB 1780 are not yet clear as other states who have taken similar measures this year have not seen the prohibition in effect yet. It is not entirely known what the effects of the 2021 bill in Colorado were, though admissions leaders say it did more to change public perception of applying to colleges than change practices inside the admissions room. However, the bill could be indicative of a shift in colleges towards equitable admissions, something that Calderon supports.
“I hope that institutions continue to review students in a holistic way,” Calderon said. “And I think especially the way that admissions are in today’s world, it’s not enough. Looking at a student academically, sure, is a strong indicator of how well a student will do, but I think it’s important to also look at other components of a student that are told in the application, like an essay, which can really reveal different parts of a student. Their identity. That’s also important.”
