Full pay question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

You realize that every business in america makes a budget without knowing how many widgets they sell. And most of them don't have billion dollar endowments.
They make up the difference with fundraising. USC is sending out the bat signal to all its alumni asking for money, they are not limiting admissions to rich kids.[b]

The algorithms are 10% yield management and 90% bullshit.

Actually, it is, because USC is one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive private in the U.S. at $99,421 a year. It doesn’t add in the costs of air travel because it doesn’t want to be the first college to go over $100k a year. It would take a monstrous amount of merit and financial aid for a non-rich kid to attend. I don’t know of any and I’m in college admissions. Even a full tuition scholarship would be undoable for most families because of the high costs of living in LA. I know. My sister went there and regretted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, this is a pretty stupid discussion by people that:

Want to believe their kid actually has a chance at some T50 school so they convince themselves that their money will make the difference;
Want to believe that their kid was excluded because they don't have that kind of money;
Want to think that private school kids get into good schools because they are full pay; or
Is inclined to believe in conspiracy theory as a way to deal with the uncertainty of life.

.

Some conspiracies are true. This conspiracy about colleges being secretly need-aware is headed to trial after 12 of 17 colleges settled for a combined total of over $300 million. But I’m sure the plaintiffs and the judge are just crazy.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you! - Joseph Heller

That's not what the judge said. Read a summary of the finding, or ask an AI to do it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, this is a pretty stupid discussion by people that:

Want to believe their kid actually has a chance at some T50 school so they convince themselves that their money will make the difference;
Want to believe that their kid was excluded because they don't have that kind of money;
Want to think that private school kids get into good schools because they are full pay; or
Is inclined to believe in conspiracy theory as a way to deal with the uncertainty of life.

.

Some conspiracies are true. This conspiracy about colleges being secretly need-aware is headed to trial after 12 of 17 colleges settled for a combined total of over $300 million. But I’m sure the plaintiffs and the judge are just crazy.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you! - Joseph Heller

That's not what the judge said. Read a summary of the finding, or ask an AI to do it for you.

Did you read the SJ opinion that came out like last week or the week before? Because I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, this is a pretty stupid discussion by people that:

Want to believe their kid actually has a chance at some T50 school so they convince themselves that their money will make the difference;
Want to believe that their kid was excluded because they don't have that kind of money;
Want to think that private school kids get into good schools because they are full pay; or
Is inclined to believe in conspiracy theory as a way to deal with the uncertainty of life.

.

Some conspiracies are true. This conspiracy about colleges being secretly need-aware is headed to trial after 12 of 17 colleges settled for a combined total of over $300 million. But I’m sure the plaintiffs and the judge are just crazy.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you! - Joseph Heller

That's not what the judge said. Read a summary of the finding, or ask an AI to do it for you.

Did you read the SJ opinion that came out like last week or the week before? Because I did.

Well then post it here, and explain it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

I’ll respond more thoroughly when I’m at my computer and can quote from the opinion or briefings.

You’re right, the judge didn’t grant summary judgment for plaintiffs because they didn’t move for it. But he denied summary judgment for defendants because there was enough evidence for a jury to find that each defendant was liable. It means that the plaintiffs put forth enough evidence that a jury could find each defendant was need-aware in its admissions process. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. There is a legitimate evidentiary basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

Oh, and it’s the dollar figure that’s relevant here, not the fact of settlement. This is just a practical judgment, but you don’t get 9-figure settlements for frivolous cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

I’ll respond more thoroughly when I’m at my computer and can quote from the opinion or briefings.

You’re right, the judge didn’t grant summary judgment for plaintiffs because they didn’t move for it. But he denied summary judgment for defendants because there was enough evidence for a jury to find that each defendant was liable. It means that the plaintiffs put forth enough evidence that a jury could find each defendant was need-aware in its admissions process. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. There is a legitimate evidentiary basis.

Are you a lawyer? Neither am I, but my understanding is that is NOT the bar for summary judgement.

Summary judgment is a legal threshold

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court may grant summary judgment only if no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party based on the available evidence.

In this case, the defendants argued that plaintiffs had not presented enough material facts to make out key elements of their claims.

The judge denied that motion, meaning:
✔️ The evidence plaintiffs have produced so far is sufficient to let a reasonable jury find for them on key issues.
✖️ The judge did not determine that the plaintiffs proved their allegations as a matter of law.

So denial of summary judgment means the evidence is strong enough to send the case to a jury — not that the judge ruled the plaintiffs have proved misconduct. A jury (or settlement) will determine that.

Why Summary Judgment Was Denied

The court found that reasonable jurors could disagree about:

whether there was an antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman Act,

whether the schools had enough market power,

whether the antitrust exemption applied, and

whether the plaintiffs’ claims are timely.

🧠 Key Takeaways

✔️ Plaintiffs have produced documented evidence — letters, internal group standards, expert reports, and historical practice records — showing coordinated activity on financial aid and shared methodologies that could reduce competition.

✔️ The complaint and discovery materials allege specific practices (including use of admissions data and donor signals) that plaintiffs characterize as need-aware or preferential to wealthy applicants.

✔️ Summary judgment was denied not because the judge “decided the schools are guilty,” but because the factual disputes — on how admissions and aid practices really operated — must be resolved by a jury.

✔️ Many defendants have settled without admitting wrongdoing, meaning settlements don’t legally establish liability but suggest the plaintiffs’ evidence was strong enough to extract considerable settlements.

But I look forward to your contradictory legal analysis once you are back at your computer. Enjoy your day until then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

Oh, and it’s the dollar figure that’s relevant here, not the fact of settlement. This is just a practical judgment, but you don’t get 9-figure settlements for frivolous cases.

Even if we assume your unsupported claim is true, this still does not prove that ability to pay was used in admissions decisions. That has been shown several times in this thread. They may - and in fact likely were - be guilty of the other things they were accused of, which essentially re-defines the meaning of need blind from the one that is important to 99% of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

I’ll respond more thoroughly when I’m at my computer and can quote from the opinion or briefings.

You’re right, the judge didn’t grant summary judgment for plaintiffs because they didn’t move for it. But he denied summary judgment for defendants because there was enough evidence for a jury to find that each defendant was liable. It means that the plaintiffs put forth enough evidence that a jury could find each defendant was need-aware in its admissions process. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. There is a legitimate evidentiary basis.

Are you a lawyer? Neither am I, but my understanding is that is NOT the bar for summary judgement.

Summary judgment is a legal threshold

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court may grant summary judgment only if no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party based on the available evidence.

In this case, the defendants argued that plaintiffs had not presented enough material facts to make out key elements of their claims.

The judge denied that motion, meaning:
✔️ The evidence plaintiffs have produced so far is sufficient to let a reasonable jury find for them on key issues.
✖️ The judge did not determine that the plaintiffs proved their allegations as a matter of law.

So denial of summary judgment means the evidence is strong enough to send the case to a jury — not that the judge ruled the plaintiffs have proved misconduct. A jury (or settlement) will determine that.

Why Summary Judgment Was Denied

The court found that reasonable jurors could disagree about:

whether there was an antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman Act,

whether the schools had enough market power,

whether the antitrust exemption applied, and

whether the plaintiffs’ claims are timely.

🧠 Key Takeaways

✔️ Plaintiffs have produced documented evidence — letters, internal group standards, expert reports, and historical practice records — showing coordinated activity on financial aid and shared methodologies that could reduce competition.

✔️ The complaint and discovery materials allege specific practices (including use of admissions data and donor signals) that plaintiffs characterize as need-aware or preferential to wealthy applicants.

✔️ Summary judgment was denied not because the judge “decided the schools are guilty,” but because the factual disputes — on how admissions and aid practices really operated — must be resolved by a jury.

✔️ Many defendants have settled without admitting wrongdoing, meaning settlements don’t legally establish liability but suggest the plaintiffs’ evidence was strong enough to extract considerable settlements.

But I look forward to your contradictory legal analysis once you are back at your computer. Enjoy your day until then.

I’m a lawyer, and an antitrust lawyer at that. ChatGPT is terrible for law. Stop using it.

I have correctly summarized the standard for SJ, as has ChatGPT. The bolded is what I said. And one of the key legal issues in this case is whether the schools were actually need-blind because they couldn’t get immunity from the antitrust exemption unless they were need-blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

I’ll respond more thoroughly when I’m at my computer and can quote from the opinion or briefings.

You’re right, the judge didn’t grant summary judgment for plaintiffs because they didn’t move for it. But he denied summary judgment for defendants because there was enough evidence for a jury to find that each defendant was liable. It means that the plaintiffs put forth enough evidence that a jury could find each defendant was need-aware in its admissions process. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. There is a legitimate evidentiary basis.

Are you a lawyer? Neither am I, but my understanding is that is NOT the bar for summary judgement.

Summary judgment is a legal threshold

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court may grant summary judgment only if no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party based on the available evidence.

In this case, the defendants argued that plaintiffs had not presented enough material facts to make out key elements of their claims.

The judge denied that motion, meaning:
✔️ The evidence plaintiffs have produced so far is sufficient to let a reasonable jury find for them on key issues.
✖️ The judge did not determine that the plaintiffs proved their allegations as a matter of law.

So denial of summary judgment means the evidence is strong enough to send the case to a jury — not that the judge ruled the plaintiffs have proved misconduct. A jury (or settlement) will determine that.

Why Summary Judgment Was Denied

The court found that reasonable jurors could disagree about:

whether there was an antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman Act,

whether the schools had enough market power,

whether the antitrust exemption applied, and

whether the plaintiffs’ claims are timely.

🧠 Key Takeaways

✔️ Plaintiffs have produced documented evidence — letters, internal group standards, expert reports, and historical practice records — showing coordinated activity on financial aid and shared methodologies that could reduce competition.

✔️ The complaint and discovery materials allege specific practices (including use of admissions data and donor signals) that plaintiffs characterize as need-aware or preferential to wealthy applicants.

✔️ Summary judgment was denied not because the judge “decided the schools are guilty,” but because the factual disputes — on how admissions and aid practices really operated — must be resolved by a jury.

✔️ Many defendants have settled without admitting wrongdoing, meaning settlements don’t legally establish liability but suggest the plaintiffs’ evidence was strong enough to extract considerable settlements.

But I look forward to your contradictory legal analysis once you are back at your computer. Enjoy your day until then.

I’m a lawyer, and an antitrust lawyer at that. ChatGPT is terrible for law. Stop using it.

I have correctly summarized the standard for SJ, as has ChatGPT. The bolded is what I said. And one of the key legal issues in this case is whether the schools were actually need-blind because they couldn’t get immunity from the antitrust exemption unless they were need-blind.

First, thanks for stating your bona fides, I respect them.

The point is for people to understand that these legal proceedings and the information therein - including the decision referenced - does not mean that admissions offices consider an applicant's ability to pay when making an admissions decision. This is the only fact that is relevant to this forum and thread, and gish-galloping into the weeds of a court case that does not contradict that fact in any way is not necessary.

People cited this case as evidence that ability to pay did matter in admissions decisions, as in "there is no such thing as need blind". Those people are wrong.

Happy to let you educate me on the legal stuff (it's interesting), and to tell me all the things chat's summary got wrong (which I presupposed in my initial use of it above), but don't want to lose that one important fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Not in admissions. Not at need blind schools.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of students at top schools are from affluent families because it is very, very difficult for a low income kid to qualify for those schools, right? Please tell me you understand this, and understand what a self selecting sample is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

Between that and their disproportionate endowments, top schools don't need those algorithms in the admissions process. So they have no need to do the process you suggest, and certainly no need to keep it a secret, which would be impossible.

Need blind schools are need blind in admissions. End period, until evidence is shown otherwise. There are few exceptions (waitlist at some, international at others, etc).

Why would the Dartmouth AO Lee Coffin talk about designations on the app in review (NN = needs need)….
Why?

DP. I vaguely recall that Dartmouth may also do its mathematical modeling in house, as discussed in that same Dartmouth admissions podcast, but I can't pinpoint when that was.

That episode stood out to me honestly. I was shocked at how openly they referred to needing aid and scrutinizing parent professions.

Did he talk about what kind of professions are more desirable? I haven’t listed to this podcast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

I’ll respond more thoroughly when I’m at my computer and can quote from the opinion or briefings.

You’re right, the judge didn’t grant summary judgment for plaintiffs because they didn’t move for it. But he denied summary judgment for defendants because there was enough evidence for a jury to find that each defendant was liable. It means that the plaintiffs put forth enough evidence that a jury could find each defendant was need-aware in its admissions process. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. There is a legitimate evidentiary basis.

Are you a lawyer? Neither am I, but my understanding is that is NOT the bar for summary judgement.

Summary judgment is a legal threshold

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court may grant summary judgment only if no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party based on the available evidence.

In this case, the defendants argued that plaintiffs had not presented enough material facts to make out key elements of their claims.

The judge denied that motion, meaning:
✔️ The evidence plaintiffs have produced so far is sufficient to let a reasonable jury find for them on key issues.
✖️ The judge did not determine that the plaintiffs proved their allegations as a matter of law.

So denial of summary judgment means the evidence is strong enough to send the case to a jury — not that the judge ruled the plaintiffs have proved misconduct. A jury (or settlement) will determine that.

Why Summary Judgment Was Denied

The court found that reasonable jurors could disagree about:

whether there was an antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman Act,

whether the schools had enough market power,

whether the antitrust exemption applied, and

whether the plaintiffs’ claims are timely.

🧠 Key Takeaways

✔️ Plaintiffs have produced documented evidence — letters, internal group standards, expert reports, and historical practice records — showing coordinated activity on financial aid and shared methodologies that could reduce competition.

✔️ The complaint and discovery materials allege specific practices (including use of admissions data and donor signals) that plaintiffs characterize as need-aware or preferential to wealthy applicants.

✔️ Summary judgment was denied not because the judge “decided the schools are guilty,” but because the factual disputes — on how admissions and aid practices really operated — must be resolved by a jury.

✔️ Many defendants have settled without admitting wrongdoing, meaning settlements don’t legally establish liability but suggest the plaintiffs’ evidence was strong enough to extract considerable settlements.

But I look forward to your contradictory legal analysis once you are back at your computer. Enjoy your day until then.

I’m a lawyer, and an antitrust lawyer at that. ChatGPT is terrible for law. Stop using it.

I have correctly summarized the standard for SJ, as has ChatGPT. The bolded is what I said. And one of the key legal issues in this case is whether the schools were actually need-blind because they couldn’t get immunity from the antitrust exemption unless they were need-blind.

First, thanks for stating your bona fides, I respect them.

The point is for people to understand that these legal proceedings and the information therein - including the decision referenced - does not mean that admissions offices consider an applicant's ability to pay when making an admissions decision. This is the only fact that is relevant to this forum and thread, and gish-galloping into the weeds of a court case that does not contradict that fact in any way is not necessary.

People cited this case as evidence that ability to pay did matter in admissions decisions, as in "there is no such thing as need blind". Those people are wrong.

Happy to let you educate me on the legal stuff (it's interesting), and to tell me all the things chat's summary got wrong (which I presupposed in my initial use of it above), but don't want to lose that one important fact.

The judge found that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that each school did not admit all students on a need-blind basis. The judge looked at the evidence himself and found that. It hasn’t yet gone to a jury yet because each side needs months now to prepare for trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

I’ll respond more thoroughly when I’m at my computer and can quote from the opinion or briefings.

You’re right, the judge didn’t grant summary judgment for plaintiffs because they didn’t move for it. But he denied summary judgment for defendants because there was enough evidence for a jury to find that each defendant was liable. It means that the plaintiffs put forth enough evidence that a jury could find each defendant was need-aware in its admissions process. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. There is a legitimate evidentiary basis.

Are you a lawyer? Neither am I, but my understanding is that is NOT the bar for summary judgement.

Summary judgment is a legal threshold

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court may grant summary judgment only if no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party based on the available evidence.

In this case, the defendants argued that plaintiffs had not presented enough material facts to make out key elements of their claims.

The judge denied that motion, meaning:
✔️ The evidence plaintiffs have produced so far is sufficient to let a reasonable jury find for them on key issues.
✖️ The judge did not determine that the plaintiffs proved their allegations as a matter of law.

So denial of summary judgment means the evidence is strong enough to send the case to a jury — not that the judge ruled the plaintiffs have proved misconduct. A jury (or settlement) will determine that.

Why Summary Judgment Was Denied

The court found that reasonable jurors could disagree about:

whether there was an antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman Act,

whether the schools had enough market power,

whether the antitrust exemption applied, and

whether the plaintiffs’ claims are timely.

🧠 Key Takeaways

✔️ Plaintiffs have produced documented evidence — letters, internal group standards, expert reports, and historical practice records — showing coordinated activity on financial aid and shared methodologies that could reduce competition.

✔️ The complaint and discovery materials allege specific practices (including use of admissions data and donor signals) that plaintiffs characterize as need-aware or preferential to wealthy applicants.

✔️ Summary judgment was denied not because the judge “decided the schools are guilty,” but because the factual disputes — on how admissions and aid practices really operated — must be resolved by a jury.

✔️ Many defendants have settled without admitting wrongdoing, meaning settlements don’t legally establish liability but suggest the plaintiffs’ evidence was strong enough to extract considerable settlements.

But I look forward to your contradictory legal analysis once you are back at your computer. Enjoy your day until then.

I’m a lawyer, and an antitrust lawyer at that. ChatGPT is terrible for law. Stop using it.

I have correctly summarized the standard for SJ, as has ChatGPT. The bolded is what I said. And one of the key legal issues in this case is whether the schools were actually need-blind because they couldn’t get immunity from the antitrust exemption unless they were need-blind.

First, thanks for stating your bona fides, I respect them.

The point is for people to understand that these legal proceedings and the information therein - including the decision referenced - does not mean that admissions offices consider an applicant's ability to pay when making an admissions decision. This is the only fact that is relevant to this forum and thread, and gish-galloping into the weeds of a court case that does not contradict that fact in any way is not necessary.

People cited this case as evidence that ability to pay did matter in admissions decisions, as in "there is no such thing as need blind". Those people are wrong.

Happy to let you educate me on the legal stuff (it's interesting), and to tell me all the things chat's summary got wrong (which I presupposed in my initial use of it above), but don't want to lose that one important fact.

DP. I was trying, apparently in vain, to distinguish between applying for aid (which is not considered) and ability to pay (which might impact the final admission decision, at some need-blind schools, generally via algorithm). I was never trying to say that need-blind isn't need blind, but to recognize some nuance.