Decade after decade, admission into American four-year colleges and universities has become increasingly competitive. The American Economic Association finds that the number of college applicants has doubled since the early 1970s, while school sizes have failed to grow at the same rate [1]. The recent swell of federal and state legislation towards the university admissions process reflects the heightened demand and scrutiny regarding access to higher education [2]. Using the political momentum fueled by the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to end race-based affirmative action in 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (A.B.) 1780 on September 30, 2024. A.B. 1780 requires all California private colleges and universities to submit an annual report showing compliance in the non-preferential treatment of applicants with legacy status or donor connections [3]. 

Legacy admissions refers to a boost in an applicant's prospective chances of admission to a university due to the applicant’s relation to an alum, typically a parent or grandparent. California’s recent ban on legacy and donor preferences in the admissions process of private colleges and universities helps promote equitable and meritocratic access to higher education. While the critique of private universities' admission practices is far from new, it was only with the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action that many states, including California, have finally begun pursuing bans and regulations regarding legacy admissions programs [4]. However, A.B. 1780 poses potential financial challenges to private non-profit colleges and universities, such as the narrowing of income streams private universities would be permitted to rely on. California’s ban on legacy admissions will substantially impact how private colleges and universities evaluate and admit potential students. 

The immediate critique of legacy admissions is the unmeritocratic nature of such programs. Admission into prestigious private universities ostensibly requires a competitive academic profile. However, research shows that legacy applicants are conferred substantial advantages within the admissions process despite having similar scores compared to non-legacy applicants [5]. In a collaborative study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Colorado-Boulder, an unnamed elite university admitted legacy applicants at a significantly higher rate than non-legacy applicants [6]. 

Intertwined with alumni connections is often class and donor potential. University applicants from the wealthiest American families are more than twice as likely to attend an elite private institution compared to middle-class applicants with similar academic scores [7]. Harvard economist Raj Chetty calculates that legacy admission programs account for just half the admissions advantage afforded to these wealthy applicants. The remaining admissions advantages include participation in exclusive sports and access to individualized resources [8]. Evidently, the benefits granted to legacy status and donor potential applicants by elite private universities erode the meritocratic ideal of higher education admissions. 

Beyond the meritocratic criticisms, legacy admissions erode the diversity of the institutions that use such programs. One study conducted on the Harvard class of 2019 found that 70 percent of all legacy admits were White [9]. Additionally, with the Supreme Court’s effective ending of race-based affirmative action, diversity among these elite educational institutions could likely wane in the coming years [10].

Joining Colorado, Maryland, and Virginia, California is the fourth state to implement a ban on legacy and donor preferences [11]. The Supreme Court’s ruling prohibiting the consideration of race within the college admissions process turned public attention toward legacy admissions. Mobilized by the ending of race-based affirmative action, opponents of the Supreme Court decision put their efforts towards further reducing biases within the college admissions process, Governor Newsom’s office echoed this sentiment: “In light of this shift, proponents of A.B. 1780 advocated for admissions criteria that additionally ensure that factors like wealth or personal relationships do not unduly influence admissions decisions” [12]. The political energy resulting from the 2023 Supreme Court decision catapulted states such as California into ultimately legislating away legacy and donor preferences in college admissions.

Despite A.B. 1780’s purported advantages, opponents of the bill posit that it may pose a threat to university financing. The Institute for Higher Education Policy reports that about 40 percent of private non-profit American universities consider legacy status in admissions [13]. However, with the advent of A.B. 1780, private California universities will have to contend with the pending changes to their admission policies come the effective date of September 2025. Stanford, for example, partially relies on donations from alumni, corporations, and philanthropists as a source of revenue. A.B. 1780 poses a possible threat to the donation revenue stream. Stanford Professor Ralph Richard Banks states, “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” [14]. In response, proponents of A.B. 1780 insist that the concern over alumni donations is exaggerated. For instance, Wesleyan University’s 2022 financial reports attributed just three percent of operating revenue to donations [15]. Regardless, the sole penalty for an institution violating A.B. 1780 is a required public report of legacy and donor-preferred admittance rates and a demographic breakdown for the given academic year. Seemingly, an institution could violate A.B. 1780 while avoiding any financial penalties—although at the cost of public perception and reputation. 

The significance of California’s A.B. 1780 can be imparted by understanding the importance of striving for and protecting the equitable and meritocratic identity of elite American universities. Despite less than one percent of Americans attending these prestigious colleges, “twelve colleges account for more than ten percent of Fortune 500 CEOs, a quarter of U.S. Senators, half of all Rhodes scholars, and three-fourths of Supreme Court justices appointed in the last half-century” [16]. Americans have a vested interest in the admittance process of institutions that produce the future leaders of American society. Following the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling, President Joe Biden unequivocally stated that America must do away with “practices like legacy admissions and other systems that expand privilege instead of opportunity” [17]. By expanding the opportunity of prestigious universities and reforming admission practices, A.B. 1780 takes a step toward ensuring an admittance process that reflects the American values of equity and merit.