Seems like it’s easy to prove all school beside HYP, MIT and Amherst are not need blind, at least for internationals (but still meet full need for any accepted internationals). Then there’s the waitlist and donor students that are potentially need aware as well.
But, I’m hearing maybe if that’s true it still not necessarily harming anyone?
It seems it could harm waitlist and internationals who need FA(but everyone should know that)….as they are less likely to be admitted simply because they have financial need.
Yes, practicing need blind admission is a condition to receiving the benefit of the exemption. Plaintiffs argue for a very narrow definition of need blind such that considering need for the waitlist, donor hook, or any form of enrollment management means the school is not need blind as meant by the exemption.
I can answer how your need blind question would be answered by Yale. There is a strict Chinese Wall between the AO officers and the FA officers. In the packets that that the AO officers receive, there is no indication that the student is seeking FA or not. Of course, from info on the HS’s, essays, LoR’s, addresses, parents’ occupation and level of education, the AO’s can make inferences, but their policy is that the admit/deny decision should be independently derived. To me, if the school over indexes FA admits vs FA applicants (e.g. 40% of applicants were FA candidates and the admitted class was over 40% FA recipients, assuming equivalent academic achievement between the 2 groups), it’s pretty strong evidence that needing FA was not a negative factor so that the policy purpose of being need blind is met.
I don’t think laches applies to antitrust violations. The point of antitrust laws is that the people being harmed in fact did not have free choice and were forced to accept higher prices/fewer choices/less service, etc… because the defendants had the power to impose non market prices and conditions either alone or through collusion with its competitors.
That doesn’t work. In my field, we have some industry round tables. We have to be very careful not to violate antitrust laws. We generally do it by having a 3rd party consulting firm sit in the middle. The round table is only a fraction of the total industry.
Maybe it’s a procedural question of standing: applicants knowingly transacted under the conditions that everyone is aware of here. How were they harmed? No college is required to admit or fund their education, and were it not for the generous FA, these folks probably would not have had the opportunity to study at these places… Maybe plaintiff should be DOJ?
Exactly. I’ve been that third party many, many times. Usually people ask for counsel to act in this capacity.
The record of proceedings is exceedingly important in these cases, where the smallest indiscretions can blow up later on in a DOJ fact finding expedition.
In order to satisfy the requirement of “standing” to sue, plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact that is traceable to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be redressed by the plaintiff’s requested remedy.
The US Supreme Court frequently reiterates the importance of “standing” calling it “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case.”
In the instant case, it is not clear whether or not any of the 5 plaintiffs were admitted from a wait list of one of the 16 defendant schools. If not, then the plaintiffs’ action arguably lacks standing to represent wait-listed students in need of financial aid who were or were not ultimately admitted.
Additionally, what harm did any plaintiff suffer that will be redressed by any of the remedies sought by plaintiffs ? Without actual harm and a remedy for that harm, plaintiffs lack standing to sue in this case.
Even if plaintiffs are found to have standing in this matter, the defendant schools are likely to challenge the request by plaintiff to represent an entire class, or classes, of potential plaintiffs.
Before any other issue is decided, the issue of the plaintiffs standing to sue in this case must be established. Without standing, questions regarding limits or definitions of the concept “need blind admissions” should not be addressed by the federal court in this case as the federal court will lack jurisdiction over this matter.
Although others speculate that this case will be decided based on a definition of “need blind”, I think that that is premature until the court decides which standard of review to use in this antitrust case. Maybe the court’s definition of “need blind” will lead it to select a standard of review–and, if so, then I agree that the definition of need blind is crucial in this case. But, courts often do what they want to do and that is not necessarily what one may expect.
From my what I understand that colleges sharing data on FA, EFC, formulas etc is all permissible as long as they remained “need blind” for US students.
Law suit is alleging that based on couple statements from college officers that give an impression that may be they are not completely “need blind”. To me it will come down to what was meant by those statements as well as “need blind” practices at these colleges.
From my what I understand that colleges sharing data on FA, EFC, formulas etc is all permissible as long as they remained “need blind” for US students.
Law suit is alleging that based on couple statements from college officers that give an impression that may be they are not completely “need blind”. To me it will come down to what was meant by those statements as well as “need blind” practices at these colleges.
Interesting perspective shared by a few other posters.
I view this as an antitrust case more than as a matter which will be decided based on the court’s definition of “need blind” as contained in the safe harbor statute.
If the judge wants to tackle this matter as an antitrust action, then the judge will define “need blind” in a strict manner; but, if the judge thinks that the allegations are overblown, then “need blind” will be given a more lenient interpretation so that the case is either dismissed or subject to a “rule of reason” standard of review.
I do understand that some may view my perspective as similar to yours, but the difference is not really in how this court defines “need blind”; the difference I see is that the court will decide how it wants to handle this matter, then go back & define the term “need blind” in a fashion designed to support that direction.
I haven’t formed much of an opinion about this lawsuit but I am curious whether the outcome will leave future applicants better or worse off. If the outcome is each school sets it’s own formula/system of financial aid awards is that a good/better result than the current system?