Reply to Suit Accuses Georgetown, Penn and M.I.T. of Admissions Based on Wealth

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Suit Accuses Georgetown, Penn and M.I.T. of Admissions Based on Wealth"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
I’m trying to understand how admitting full pay students harms other students by increasing their costs. I think that is what the lawsuit is claiming, is that right? [/quote]
Well, that brings up an interesting point. The colleges colluded on financial aid formulas, for which the supposed damages are reduced need-based aid to individuals. However, that was completely allowed under the carve-out exception as long as the universities were need-blind. If the universities intentionally admitted students who were [i]much more[/i] than merely full pay, seems irrelevant to the alleged damages, at a minimum, and quite possibly increased the level of generosity of financial aid.

If the allegation is that the financial aid formulas would have been more generous if the universities had not intentionally admitted big donor students, that makes no sense. Universities may have had budget line items for post-enrollment donations from prospective families that supported the level of generosity in the financial aid formulas.[/quote]

The allegation is that the collusion on financial aid hurt the recipients. The collusion was allowed because there was an anti-trust carve out for need blind schools. The definition of need bling in the carve out required that "all students" be admitted on a need blind basis. By showing that the universities did not admit "all students" on a need blind basis, the Plaintiffs argue that the antitrust exemption does not apply and that the collusion was illegal. [/quote]
Right, but I think it's hard to causally connect the damages via collusion to not being need-blind. The damages via collusion only exist under a straight-up price fixing violation where the entire carve-out itself is no longer applicable to the defendants for any reason whatsoever.

I think the defendants must do is to distinguish between need-blind, on the one hand, and admitting prospective big donors on the other, which is not the same thing as being full pay. Being full pay is not the reason the prospective big donors were admitted; if the  defendants can fully articulate the difference, they have a chance. Caveat, I haven't looked at any briefs, so I have no idea what they are actually arguing or how the carve-out defined need-blind, if at all.[/quote]

They don't have to show a relationship between damages and not being need blind. The lack of need blind removes the anti trust exemption, it has nothing to do with damages [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics