And that ^^ is an argument for ED in my opinion and a very good reason why some kids don’t get acceptances…they can’t even be analytical about their college choice and apply critical thinking skills to suss out differences. So they have EA or rolling while they figure it out. The vast, vast majority of college bound students could tell a stranger where they would love to go to college…even if it isn’t in the cards. Perhaps “we” have given some kids too many choices. The proverbial kid in the candy store.
@profdad: Colleges & universities have brought this on themselves by repeatedly raising tuitions & other costs while endowments soar to mind boggling amounts. Remember that this investigation is just focusing, to the best of our knowledge, on the most prestigious & wealthiest universities & colleges.
A powerful & prominent Iowa Senator & some of his colleagues has been calling for reform on burgeoning college endowments for many years now–and certainly well before the current administration came to power.
Any half-decent lawyer can consider and discuss the merits of a case without succumbing to the emotional pull of an agenda, whether ideological or parental.
Indeed, and this is why, to me, it doesn’t matter ‘Why’ they are choosing to investigate. A wrong practice is a wrong practice. (Highly selective colleges should not be able to continue a wrong practice just because someone doesn’t like them.)
Either sharing student admissions rises to the level of anti-trust or it doesn’t. If the latter, no harm-no foul. The top xx schools can then continue their practices. OTOH, if the feds find a violation, then the xx colleges have to stop sharing student admissions; but that doesn’t mean that they have to stop ED. The practical matter of ED cheaters just means a few more selected off of the WL.
To me, its hard to argue that the headaches caused to Adcoms by eliminating sharing admissions data is a good enough public policy reason to collude, if that is in fact what they are doing.
@Publisher you’re welcome on that NYT link. They only give you so many free articles and this is a worthy topic.
To me, the kid and parents sign a contract with the school when they agree to ED. That contract is not a general release for that school to release your name to other schools about that application. In fact, the agreement isn’t even binding if the student and parents cannot make the finances work. The very release of your information prejudices applications to other universities. It’s dirty pool and an unfair advantage for one party to the contract and a disadvantage to another. Does it reach the level of corruption or something that should catch the eye of the DOJ? Maybe.
Common thought is that the sharing did not occur until after acceptances but that is definitely something that would come up in the investigations. In my mind a cheater is a cheater and that, to me, is enough to exclude cheaters from the most selective colleges in the nation.
But some aren’t getting enough aid to attend. I think that’s just wrong. From the original article:
"A 2016 article in U.S. News & World Report provided advice on what students should do if they change their minds about enrolling at a college to which they have applied and been admitted early decision. While there are circumstances in which colleges will release an admitted applicant from the obligation to enroll, the article noted that ** not all colleges will accept such a decision.** The article said, “Katharine Fretwell, dean of admission and financial aid at Amherst College … says her school and about 30 other colleges share lists of students admitted through early decision. ** And Fretwell says she’d likely also share the names of students who were admitted via early decision, but who are not attending for financial aid and other reasons.”**
These schools have zero right to share information about students without getting releases from the students and parents. Trying to get retribution on 17-year old kids is definitely morally wrong and possibly illegal as well. Fretwell is particularly offensive since she is dean of both admissions AND financial aid. Of course she’s cooperating now. She really doesn’t have a choice. Amherst is lucky that nobody has sued them. I have zero problem with Amherst seeking legal remedies against those who violate their agreement. Fretwell would never do that because it would make her look like a public bully rather than the private one she is.
Since the ED agreements are not legally enforceable contracts, what effect does that have on the reasonableness of the information sharing?
Id there a release on name etc on the common app? If so that could be an issue or a loophole to be examined. Has it been determined that The ED agreement is not legal?
Binding agreements in and of themselves are not illegal. Leases are a great example of a binding agreement.
Even leases can be non-binding/unenforceable if one of the parties lacks legal capacity to enter into the agreement.
P.S. Lack of legal capacity to enter into a contractual agreement such as a lease is just one of many reasons that a lease may be deemed non-binding or unenforceable in a court of law. Illegal purpose, lack of consideration, fraud, etc. are some other reasons that a lease may not be a binding contract. Also, if this lease is oral & supposedly for more than one year it would violate the Statute of Frauds (requires certain agreements to be in writing). Also, certain jurisdictions may have particular requirements that were not met in the lease agreement.
@momofthreeboys It appears to be commonly assumed that ED agreements are not contracts that can be enforced in court. (I suspect all the elements of a contract aren’t present, perhaps beyond the just the capacity issue…)
There is a release in the ED agreement right below the signature line, e.g. “I also understand that, with an Early Decision offer of admission, Amherst College may share my name and my Early Decision Agreement with other institutions.”
I do hope that effect on the marketplace is discussed at some point in this antitrust inquiry/investigation from the standpoint of the other 3,500 or so colleges & universities which do not offer ED application options.
Also, it would be interesting to know how the initial claim or concern was raised. Who is/was the complaining party to the Antitrust Division of the Justice Dept. Was it an individual, another college or university, or ???
I find it hard to believe that the colleges who have ED options haven’t checked with their own lawyers on such matters.
Exactly. That is what makes this “probe” so interesting. Parents sign the agreement also…much like a landlord may require a co-signer especially in a college town. I wondered if there was a sign off on release of information…and there is. So we are back to anti-trust.
A National Association of College and University Attorneys memo
https://www.princeton.edu/ogc/resources-1/Antitrust-Issues-Affecting-Colleges-and-Universities.pdf (2015) has some interesting parts. Possibly relevant to the ED information sharing situation:
Our D was accepted ED at a “highly selective liberal arts university” (as it describes itself) and we’re very thankful. According to the Common Data Set for her freshman class at her university, the ED admission rate was 41.8 percent compared to an overall admission rate of 31.1 percent (they didn’t offer an EA option then, but do now).
The Common Application ED Agreement states “I have read and understand my rights and responsibilities under the Early Decision process. I also understand that with an Early Decision offer of admission, this institution may share my name and my Early Decision Agreement with other institutions.”
Does the Department of Justice seek to obtain a court ruling that this provision of the Common Application ED Agreement agreement is illegal? That would be most unfortunate.
We do not know what the Justice Dept. is attempting to do at this time other than to gather information and perform an antitrust analysis.
The link in post #236 by @evergreen5 is a good read on all of this. It is entirely possible that the DOJ finds the general release in the Common Application to be illegal. I don’t understand how there can be any compelling reason for these “lists” to even exist. The only possible outcome of this sharing is to discourage other colleges from admitting that ED applicant whom otherwise may have been admitted. If the finances at the ED college don’t work out, this puts the student/applicant at a very unfair disadvantage, especially if the financial package really isn’t all that great. I understand the other side of the argument in that it stops students from shopping for better financial deals at other colleges. However, the number of unethical students/families doing this is probably an insignificant percentage. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.