I highly doubt it is the act of backing out that bothers the colleges, it would be a student who applied to two schools ED or backed out of one ED peer school to apply RD or ED II at another peer school. Whether signing the release that info will be shared is legal or illegal is an entirely different issue separate from whether colleges are violating anti-trust. Personal Release agreements are very common - most often seen for images or video, medical records…but in and of themselves may not be “illegal.” If anything perhaps the release will need more specificity…e.g. a list of WHO will receive the data after accepting the offer.
In an antitrust probe, the Justice Dept. is focusing on competition & how a practice or practices affects the competitive marketplace. If during the course of the investigation other practices are thought to be in violation of other non-antitrust federal laws, then a referral will be made to the appropriate division within the Justice Dept.
Just a thought. If these ED or SCEA schools are on common app, maybe a programming fix can prevent students from applying to multiple ED of EA colleges . If accepted on ED or SCEA , there can be a question on the common app to indicate as such. Colleges then should be able to see this quite clearly. Colleges should be update their ED and EA rules on the common app. I may be missing the FA part this.
Whether or not it could be done, the common app folks would be foolish to entangle that system with an investigation.
Maybe, but it’s a good idea and most likely can be accomplished. CB has inserted themselves so far into the process between colleges and students there is no light so to speak. it’s silly to think they are immune from doing anything to support either end of the process.
So, is there a list of the 30 schools involved?
“Just a thought. If these ED or SCEA schools are on common app, maybe a programming fix can prevent students from applying to multiple ED of EA colleges.”
The Common App is already set up pretty well to police against multiple ED applications (which isn’t where the cheating happens). Since the ED agreement is baked into the system and the agreement has to be signed by the student, parents and high school.
Anyone know if the CA is similarly set up when it comes to SCEA applications? I’d guess not. I know it does not police the various flavors of REA, which policies are more subtle (and which have varying exceptions) than the simple rules for ED (one and only one).
But the CA only handles the submission of the applications – including all those RD applications that are OK to make along side ED applications. So the CA does not touch on acceptances and withdrawals, which is where the cheating would occur.
A little bit of speculation on DOJ’s thinking
https://apps.carleton.edu/carletonian/?story_id=1706587&issue_id=1706564
https://middleburycampus.com/38577/news/justice-dept-opens-probe-into-colleges-ed-practices/
Swarthmore news article: “Institutions like Swarthmore have less of an incentive to offer robust financial aid packages to early decision applicants since the students have already decided to attend the institution. By ensuring that students apply to only one school, they eliminate competition between schools over prospective students.” http://swarthmorephoenix.com/2018/05/03/doj-investigates-swarthmores-early-decision-admissions-process/
2006 law review article: “To the extent that the costs of ED [inability to compare financial aid] outweigh the market benefits for students [express preference and find out early], student consumers suffer. If this happens, ED violates the Sherman Act.” https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/civil-rights-antitrust-and-early-decision-programs
“Institutions like Swarthmore have less of an incentive to offer robust financial aid packages to early decision applicants since the students have already decided to attend the institution.”
If the DOJ wants to focus on this kind of stuff, maybe they should focus on why my cable company offers much better deals than I can ever get as a long term customer.
ED definitely locks in the consumer but it is odd that they’re investigating something affects a really small part of the population and has been going on for a long time. If anything violates the Sherman Anti-trust act though, it should be stopped.
Jenner & Block published an article contending that ED isn’t anticompetitive, *Breaking Down the New Antitrust Investigation into Colleges/i.
https://jenner.com/system/assets/publications/18066/original/Gallegos%20Stone%20Capel%20Law360%20May%2014%202018.pdf?1526489437
It is not an impartial memo but rather sounds like advocacy.
The article argues that National Society of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. 679 (1978), does not apply, that students know the price because colleges publish tuition prices. However, the article failed to mention Brown, 5 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1993), which held that financial aid is part of the process of setting tuition prices. Published average financial aid is also mentioned, as if that has any relevance whatsoever to an individual student’s price.
The article also argues that students can know the price because there are NPCs, although as often discussed here, there can be a lack of accuracy in certain scenarios and colleges are not obligated by the NPC. The NPC is probably the closest a student can come to knowing the price for the purpose of price comparison shopping, but is it enough? (and furthermore, what about merit discounts, for price comparison purposes? or would merit fall outside this discussion?)
Then the article admits that students forego comparing FA (i.e. prices per Brown) and contends that students receive consideration in the forms of finding out three months early and having a better chance. But, the colleges can defer a decision and, as the article notes, the colleges don’t promise increased chances. The colleges are bound to do nothing; accordingly it seems that the suggested consideration is illusory.
At the very end, the article discusses Brown, where the Third Circuit remanded for the district court to consider policy justifications (rule of reason analysis). The article then concludes that it would be unlikely a court would find a problem with colleges acting to ensure integrity in the ED process, but doesn’t give examples of policy justifications of ED.
I would not rely on the Jenner & Block analysis as that law firm is probably trying to attract college & university clients. Since Jenner & Block is not the US Government or DOJ, they can only take one position in order to attract client colleges & universities involved in the DOJ antitrust inquiry.