[Snorlax94]

The title of the article uses the word "colluding".  I don't think this lawsuit has merit if the basis is collusion.  The schools aren't working together to admit students of wealthy families in the hopes of future donations.  They're all doing it to some extent but they aren't working in collusion with other institutions. 

FWIW the article states;
Stanford and Princeton universities are among the wealthiest colleges not listed as members on the group’s website.

I think they are being sued for coordinating their efforts and essentially agreeing to not compete financially for students. 

it reads to me that they are being accused of fixing the price to bring in a bright but under-funded student.

I agree. It looks like a strong case. Collusion has a specific meaning in anti-trust. I haven't looked at exactly how the 568 group operates, but it sure looks like collusion from the article.

I took the class on Industrial Organization from Professor Bresnahan (the chief anti-trust economist at the DOJ during the Clinton administration) and I imagine he would have advised Stanford not to participate in that 568 group for exactly this reason.

I'm shocked that they've gotten away with it for this long. Just because you collude out in the open doesn't mean it's not collusion.

[Snorlax94]

The title of the article uses the word "colluding".  I don't think this lawsuit has merit if the basis is collusion.  The schools aren't working together to admit students of wealthy families in the hopes of future donations.  They're all doing it to some extent but they aren't working in collusion with other institutions. 

FWIW the article states;
Stanford and Princeton universities are among the wealthiest colleges not listed as members on the group’s website.

I think they are being sued for coordinating their efforts and essentially agreeing to not compete financially for students. 

it reads to me that they are being accused of fixing the price to bring in a bright but under-funded student.

I agree. It looks like a strong case. Collusion has a specific meaning in anti-trust. I haven't looked at exactly how the 568 group operates, but it sure looks like collusion from the article.

I took the class on Industrial Organization from Professor Bresnahan (the chief anti-trust economist at the DOJ during the Clinton administration) and I imagine he would have advised Stanford not to participate in that 568 group for exactly this reason.

I'm shocked that they've gotten away with it for this long. Just because you collude out in the open doesn't mean it's not collusion.