[ca245]

This linked NY Times article (may be behind paywall) explains how the case is actually rather convoluted. Yes, the statute (Section 568) allows a group of universities to use a common formula for determining financial need if they all agree to have a need-blind admissions policy. The suit alleges that some members did not follow need-blind admissions policies because (a) Penn and Vanderbilt did consider the financial means of wait-listed applicants and (b) some schools gave preferential treatment to applicants from wealthy families who were likely to make generous alumni donations in the future -- i.e., did consider, in a reverse sense, the financial means of such applicants. Though not all schools in the group engaged in these practices, the allegation is that the non-need-blind practices of certain members taints all members of the group, keeping them from claiming the anti-trust safe harbor of Section 568.

NY Times

[ca245]

This linked NY Times article (may be behind paywall) explains how the case is actually rather convoluted. Yes, the statute (Section 568) allows a group of universities to use a common formula for determining financial need if they all agree to have a need-blind admissions policy. The suit alleges that some members did not follow need-blind admissions policies because (a) Penn and Vanderbilt did consider the financial means of wait-listed applicants and (b) some schools gave preferential treatment to applicants from wealthy families who were likely to make generous alumni donations in the future -- i.e., did consider, in a reverse sense, the financial means of such applicants. Though not all schools in the group engaged in these practices, the allegation is that the non-need-blind practices of certain members taints all members of the group, keeping them from claiming the anti-trust safe harbor of Section 568.

NY Times