Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for MIT being the only school that admits solely on merit

It never was. No school does that. Where do people get these ideas?

In most other countries they do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes should be next

Don’t think that’s what article is about, but yes, I’ll take the rich kid whose family will donate something thousands will benefit from versus the athlete where most students don’t even attend.

Athletics are an important part of the college experience and going to school with a kid that is really good at lacrosse is important to a complete college education.

Meanwhile every other country in the world wonders how any of that makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising at all - there is a lowered requirement for those kids that does not apply to the rest of the world.

Not sure about Penn and Georgetown, but if you are "unqualified" at MIT you are going to get destroyed. Your life will be miserable. Unlikely you will graduate.

You know you can get a poly sci degree at MIT, right?

Or a history degree.

Or a literature degree.

It's like having an entire meal made up of side dishes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich/poor is not a constitutionally protected class. Schools give priority to poor kids (at the expense of middle class kids) - I do not get the objection to admitting rich kids who actually pay full tuition and then some.

Way to not understand the lawsuit. The schools were taking advantage of an antitrust exemption to share financial aid information. That exemption required that they be need blind.

But they are need blind.

They are not favoring these kids because they have the ability to pay the tuition, they are favoring these kids because a well connected banker is asking that these kids get special treatment and might lead to a lot more than a bit of tuition.

I don't like that money can buy access to pretty much anything but we do not have a merit based admissions process, never did.
It seems a bit hypocritical if we are only bothered this fact that now that affirmative action has been outlawed.
Were we really only looking the other way on all this crap because we were giving preferences to black and hispanic students over asian students?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

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 much more 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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:Nothing new here but still worth a read

“ The schools were accused of giving special treatment to wealthy students who might not otherwise have been admitted.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/17/us/lawsuit-georgetown-wealthy-students-admissions.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Wait, is the lawsuit about the existence of a Z List?

That seems DAF

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

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 much more 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.

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.

I don't understand. Colleges need to budget their FA don't they? They can not literally admit 2000 per class that ALL need aid. They would go broke.

need blind schools wouldn't go broke. they could afford it.

if you can't afford that, then you have to say you're need aware. that's fair.

but dont say need blind if you're not

But to be -- and stay -- need blind, you need to do what? Raise a crap ton of money. People fighting this are cutting of their noses to spite their faces.

From what I gather, among the elite private universities an applicant's ability to pay full tuition isn't that consequential. The endowments of these schools and the research dollars they bring in - except for Georgetown - is enormous. A few million dollars of financial aid is nothing. It's the cost of doing business to get the best students. What gets you on a preferred admissions list is the likelihood of significant future donations. These students come from very high net worth families. And schools look at them and think ka-ching and give them preferential treatment.

Is it wrong? I don't know. If a school admits too many dumb rich kids their reputation will fall. But the money those families donate does support the rest of the school and allows them to maintain all the things that support a quality education. This isn't about tuition dollars. This is about seven and eight figure donations. It's a balancing act for these schools. What bothers me the most is collusion. I have a kid at one of the private universities listed in the lawsuit. That university settled and we actually got a check from them. It wasn't much, but it was an admission of guilt when it comes to colluding about financial aid.

I think private universities should be free to do as they wish when it comes to choosing who they admit. As long as they remain in their silos. But if the elite universities are colluding amongst themselves when it comes to financial aid, that's a big problem. And hopefully that's come to an end.

Agree. if you are not in this world, you don't realize what the $$$ looks like. It's not a million dollars. Its a 25 million INITIAL gift to a new initiative or pet project of the president's - followed by MORE - to eventually get to $100 million or usually more. Especially if admitting the first of several children....

Schools need this private funding for ALL of the various pet projects and initiatives that are NOT funded by the endowment. This isn't about funding the school's financial aid. These are the pet projects that presidents at universities get famous for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

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 much more 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.

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.

I don't understand. Colleges need to budget their FA don't they? They can not literally admit 2000 per class that ALL need aid. They would go broke.

need blind schools wouldn't go broke. they could afford it.

if you can't afford that, then you have to say you're need aware. that's fair.

but dont say need blind if you're not

But to be -- and stay -- need blind, you need to do what? Raise a crap ton of money. People fighting this are cutting of their noses to spite their faces.

From what I gather, among the elite private universities an applicant's ability to pay full tuition isn't that consequential. The endowments of these schools and the research dollars they bring in - except for Georgetown - is enormous. A few million dollars of financial aid is nothing. It's the cost of doing business to get the best students. What gets you on a preferred admissions list is the likelihood of significant future donations. These students come from very high net worth families. And schools look at them and think ka-ching and give them preferential treatment.

Is it wrong? I don't know. If a school admits too many dumb rich kids their reputation will fall. But the money those families donate does support the rest of the school and allows them to maintain all the things that support a quality education. This isn't about tuition dollars. This is about seven and eight figure donations. It's a balancing act for these schools. What bothers me the most is collusion. I have a kid at one of the private universities listed in the lawsuit. That university settled and we actually got a check from them. It wasn't much, but it was an admission of guilt when it comes to colluding about financial aid.

I think private universities should be free to do as they wish when it comes to choosing who they admit. As long as they remain in their silos. But if the elite universities are colluding amongst themselves when it comes to financial aid, that's a big problem. And hopefully that's come to an end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

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 much more 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.

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.

I don't understand. Colleges need to budget their FA don't they? They can not literally admit 2000 per class that ALL need aid. They would go broke.

need blind schools wouldn't go broke. they could afford it.

if you can't afford that, then you have to say you're need aware. that's fair.

but dont say need blind if you're not

But to be -- and stay -- need blind, you need to do what? Raise a crap ton of money. People fighting this are cutting of their noses to spite their faces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

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 much more 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.

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.

I don't understand. Colleges need to budget their FA don't they? They can not literally admit 2000 per class that ALL need aid. They would go broke.

need blind schools wouldn't go broke. they could afford it.

if you can't afford that, then you have to say you're need aware. that's fair.

but dont say need blind if you're not

In other news, water is wet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

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 much more 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.

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.

I don't understand. Colleges need to budget their FA don't they? They can not literally admit 2000 per class that ALL need aid. They would go broke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

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 much more 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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

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 much more 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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would Sara H be the Penn whistleblower for this? What does she have to gain?

I doubt she testified voluntarily. Why make an enemy of Penn’s admissions office? Most likely she was subpoenaed. If she was subpoenaed, then she had no choice.

+1