01-10-2022, 02:38 PM
Cal delenda est
The CardBoard
/
C-House!
/
The CardBoard
/
Outside Topic Yale, Other Universities Sued for Collusion
Outside Topic Yale, Other Universities Sued for Collusion
Cal delenda est
Cal delenda est
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
01-10-2022, 04:05 PM
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.
FWIW the article states;
Stanford and Princeton universities are among the wealthiest colleges not listed as members on the group’s website.
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.
FWIW the article states;
Stanford and Princeton universities are among the wealthiest colleges not listed as members on the group’s website.
(01-10-2022, 04:05 PM)paloalto Wrote: 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.
(01-10-2022, 04:05 PM)paloalto Wrote: 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.
01-10-2022, 05:25 PM
That was my read as well.
Really glad to see we weren’t a part of another admissions mess.
BC
Really glad to see we weren’t a part of another admissions mess.
BC
That was my read as well.
Really glad to see we weren’t a part of another admissions mess.
BC
Really glad to see we weren’t a part of another admissions mess.
BC
(01-10-2022, 04:33 PM)murky Wrote: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.(01-10-2022, 04:05 PM)paloalto Wrote: 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 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.
(01-10-2022, 04:33 PM)murky Wrote: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.(01-10-2022, 04:05 PM)paloalto Wrote: 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 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.
01-10-2022, 10:04 PM
The article:
From the 568 group's site: Antitrust Exemption Statute:
"common principles of analysis for determining the need of such students for financial aid"
If that is the primary claim of the suit, I'd be hard pressed to see why that is not specifically exempted by the law, unless they are somehow claiming that the group is restricting individual schools from exercising their independent professional judgement.
Quote:The proposed antitrust class action lawsuit, filed Sunday in federal court in Chicago, accuses the university “cartel” of a long-running scheme to collectively adopt “a common formula for determining an applicant’s ability to pay” tuition, rather than competing freely over financial aid by trying to attract students through more generous aid offers.
From the 568 group's site: Antitrust Exemption Statute:
Quote:Application of Antitrust Laws to Award of Need-Based Educational Aid"a common formula for determining an applicant's ability to pay" is very similar to
15 U.S.C 1 Note
(as amended by Pub. L. 114–44)
“(a) Exemption.—It shall not be unlawful under the antitrust laws for 2 or more institutions of higher education at
which all students admitted are admitted on a need-blind basis, to agree or attempt to agree—
“(1) to award such students financial aid only on the basis of demonstrated financial need for such aid;
“(2) to use common principles of analysis for determining the need of such students for financial aid if the
agreement to use such principles does not restrict financial aid officers at such institutions in their
exercising independent professional judgment with respect to individual applicants for such financial aid;
or ...
"common principles of analysis for determining the need of such students for financial aid"
If that is the primary claim of the suit, I'd be hard pressed to see why that is not specifically exempted by the law, unless they are somehow claiming that the group is restricting individual schools from exercising their independent professional judgement.
The article:
From the 568 group's site: Antitrust Exemption Statute:
"common principles of analysis for determining the need of such students for financial aid"
If that is the primary claim of the suit, I'd be hard pressed to see why that is not specifically exempted by the law, unless they are somehow claiming that the group is restricting individual schools from exercising their independent professional judgement.
Quote:The proposed antitrust class action lawsuit, filed Sunday in federal court in Chicago, accuses the university “cartel” of a long-running scheme to collectively adopt “a common formula for determining an applicant’s ability to pay” tuition, rather than competing freely over financial aid by trying to attract students through more generous aid offers.
From the 568 group's site: Antitrust Exemption Statute:
Quote:Application of Antitrust Laws to Award of Need-Based Educational Aid"a common formula for determining an applicant's ability to pay" is very similar to
15 U.S.C 1 Note
(as amended by Pub. L. 114–44)
“(a) Exemption.—It shall not be unlawful under the antitrust laws for 2 or more institutions of higher education at
which all students admitted are admitted on a need-blind basis, to agree or attempt to agree—
“(1) to award such students financial aid only on the basis of demonstrated financial need for such aid;
“(2) to use common principles of analysis for determining the need of such students for financial aid if the
agreement to use such principles does not restrict financial aid officers at such institutions in their
exercising independent professional judgment with respect to individual applicants for such financial aid;
or ...
"common principles of analysis for determining the need of such students for financial aid"
If that is the primary claim of the suit, I'd be hard pressed to see why that is not specifically exempted by the law, unless they are somehow claiming that the group is restricting individual schools from exercising their independent professional judgement.
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
NY Times
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
NY Times
01-10-2022, 10:31 PM
Assuming ca245's description of the plaintiffs' theory of the case is accurate (and I'm not suggesting it isn't), that seems like a pretty weak theory of antitrust violation. This seems like an opportunity to drum up publicity by shaming some increasingly unpopular and deep-pocketed defendants.
Assuming ca245's description of the plaintiffs' theory of the case is accurate (and I'm not suggesting it isn't), that seems like a pretty weak theory of antitrust violation. This seems like an opportunity to drum up publicity by shaming some increasingly unpopular and deep-pocketed defendants.
01-11-2022, 12:14 PM
I am skeptical that any school's admission is needs blind. Stanford claims that it doesn't consider need. Back in my day, one year the SLS admissions committee was run by a professor that set out to actually follow the wonderful things the school had been claiming. Almost depleted all the financial aid funds. The school beat an immediate retreat.
I am skeptical that any school's admission is needs blind. Stanford claims that it doesn't consider need. Back in my day, one year the SLS admissions committee was run by a professor that set out to actually follow the wonderful things the school had been claiming. Almost depleted all the financial aid funds. The school beat an immediate retreat.
01-11-2022, 12:19 PM
(01-11-2022, 12:14 PM)82 Card Wrote: I am skeptical that any school's admission is needs blind. Stanford claims that it doesn't consider need. Back in my day, one year the SLS admissions committee was run by a professor that set out to actually follow the wonderful things the school had been claiming. Almost depleted all the financial aid funds. The school beat an immediate retreat.
It's been a while since I applied to grad school (late oughts), so I may be forgetting, but I don't remember filling out financial aid paperwork as part of the application process, including at SLS. I only remember filling out such paperwork at SLS once I was admitted, in order to find out what my aid package would be.
And I do think "need" is fungible, because when I got a slightly better need-based package elsewhere, I took it back to SLS and they suddenly discovered I had a bit more "need" than before. So I think your broader point is well taken!
(01-11-2022, 12:14 PM)82 Card Wrote: I am skeptical that any school's admission is needs blind. Stanford claims that it doesn't consider need. Back in my day, one year the SLS admissions committee was run by a professor that set out to actually follow the wonderful things the school had been claiming. Almost depleted all the financial aid funds. The school beat an immediate retreat.
It's been a while since I applied to grad school (late oughts), so I may be forgetting, but I don't remember filling out financial aid paperwork as part of the application process, including at SLS. I only remember filling out such paperwork at SLS once I was admitted, in order to find out what my aid package would be.
And I do think "need" is fungible, because when I got a slightly better need-based package elsewhere, I took it back to SLS and they suddenly discovered I had a bit more "need" than before. So I think your broader point is well taken!
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »