Recently, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1780, which, starting September 1, 2025, prohibits nonprofit private universities in California from considering legacy and donor preferences in admissions.
"Legacy admissions" refer to giving preference to children of alumni, while "donor admissions" mean gaining an advantage because of family donations to the school.
The signing of this bill ensures that university admissions will be based on students' abilities and achievements, not personal connections or family wealth, thereby reducing bias.
Similar reforms have been sweeping across the nation. Earlier, Maryland enacted a law banning alumni legacy preferences at private universities, while Virginia, Illinois, and Colorado have imposed the same restrictions on public universities.
These measures send a clear signal: college admissions should be based on students' actual accomplishments and abilities, not family background or financial means.
As more states join this wave of reform, the concept of fair competition is gradually being realized, creating more equal access to education for all students. This not only represents progress in the admissions system but also reflects society's strong call for educational equity.
Where Did the Bill Come From?
The bill was originally drafted by Democratic Assemblymember Phil Ting from San Francisco. He openly stated that the initial idea for admissions reform was influenced by the "Varsity Blues" scandal that erupted in 2019.
This scandal was the largest college admissions fraud case in U.S. history, exposing serious inequities in university admissions.
Wealthy families bribed college consultants, coaches, and admissions officers to fabricate athletic profiles or manipulate test scores, illegally gaining entry to top schools. Several renowned California institutions were implicated, including Stanford University, the University of Southern California, UC Berkeley, and UCLA.
The central figure of the scandal, William Singer, orchestrated and executed the fraudulent scheme through his admissions consulting company, involving up to $25 million.
After the "Varsity Blues" scandal was exposed, the admissions fraud cases continued to send shockwaves. Private universities repeatedly saw news of senior officials abusing power and taking bribes. The University of Southern California was one such case.
In September 2022, former USC Dean Marilyn Flynn publicly admitted to accepting bribes and abusing her position during her tenure. Flynn received a massive annual government grant of up to $9 million from Los Angeles City Councilmember Mark Ridley-Thomas; in a quid pro quo arrangement, she agreed to grant his son a full scholarship admission and a paid professorship.
These serial admissions scandals exposed all kinds of shady dealings, triggering calls for reform.
It was against this backdrop of chaos that Assemblymember Ting pushed for the new legislation. His goal is straightforward: dismantle the backdoors opened by connections and money, restore fairness and transparency to admissions, and give all students a chance to compete on merit.
The Impact of Legacy Admissions Reform on Top Universities
The passage of this bill will directly affect schools with the highest legacy admission rates, including Stanford University, the University of Southern California, and Santa Clara University.
According to statements by the assemblymember, in 2022, legacy admits accounted for about 14% of total admissions at Stanford and USC, and 13% at Santa Clara University.
In response to the new law, USC was among the first to issue a statement, saying, "The university will continue to improve its admissions processes and recruitment efforts, striving to attract more outstanding students, and will comply with relevant legal requirements."
Santa Clara University similarly responded, stating, "The university is committed to implementing fair and just admissions policies and will strictly comply with all state and federal requirements."
Stanford University, in an email to its campus news service, merely stated that it would continue to review its admissions policies, without clarifying whether it would comply with the new law or what specific adjustments it might make.
Higher education was once a privilege of the elite, and many top universities, especially the Ivies, have long symbolized upper-class privilege. Despite recent efforts to promote diversity, universities still struggle to shed the deep-rooted influence of elitism.
Ordinary students can only rely on their own merits, while wealthy families can easily use money to open backdoors, squeezing out opportunities that should belong to regular students. This is undoubtedly a profound injustice.
Although the bill won't take effect until September of next year, its passage has already paved the way for a profound transformation in college admissions systems. This is not only a direct challenge to the long-standing privilege problem in admissions but also a powerful response in the wake of affirmative action limitations.
Against the backdrop of weakened consideration of race in admissions, this new law is particularly significant, sending a clear message to all elite institutions: privilege and connections will no longer be allowed to determine access to educational opportunities.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that universities cannot consider race as a factor in admissions
Educational equity is a long and arduous journey. I hope every student will stay grounded and approach their applications seriously—this is the true shortcut to success.
