Justice Department Investigates Early-Decision Admissions

So it sounds like some DC bureaucrat’s kid didn’t get accepted to their top choice through ED and are taking out their anger on the schools and the ED process. If students agreed to the terms of their ED application (that included accepting that the schools may share their acceptance information), then I don’t see where the violation lies. Students have already committed to the school.

@lastone03 Merit aid varies wildly. Perhaps some schools are fair about it, but since merit is meant as an incentive to entice you to go there, I don’t see why schools would want to overspend on merit during ED when the applicant is locked in. My own kids received merit offers everywhere between $5K and $40K/year. If you’re relying on that kind of aid in addition to FA, that’s a huge difference.

I would, however, like to see CommonApp put a cap on how many schools you can add. My children’s high school does and it hasn’t hurt acceptances. It just forces you to really come up with a good list.

I agree with @momofthreeboys and some other posters above that if you are accepted early decision, you should honor the agreement. If you are not accepted ED, no other college ever will know that you tried to be, and there will be no harm to your applications to those other colleges.

Early decision gives an edge in admissions at some of the most selective colleges. For a strong applicant, this edge may make the difference. These top colleges also are the colleges that offer need-blind admissions and that meet full financial need of applicants, so lower income applicants can apply ED. Please see this description of financial aid at Williams College, below. There is no difference between how a financial package is determined for RD vs. ED, and Williams is amazingly generous, to upper middle class families as well as to families in poverty and everyone in between:

https://magazine.williams.edu/2016/spring/feature/financial-aid-at-williams/

Less expensive than the University of Massachusetts for anyone making less than $140,000 a year. No loans included in the package for under a $75,000 income, and no more than $4000 in loans for anyone. Study abroad included. Incidental expenses like haircuts and pizza considered. Incredible opportunity!

Antitrust laws are designed to protect competition, not competitors.

With the understanding that “antitrust laws are designed to protect competition, not competitors” it seems that restrictive binding ED & SCEA could be on the way out if any significant admissions advantage is given to ED or SCEA applicants as this reduces competition among the most selective colleges & universities.

If ED is anti-trust, what does that make the NRMP (National Resident Matching Program)?

Yes, the only issue I think they could have is with the entire concept of ED. The sharing piece of admitted students after acceptances would be a privacy violation not an anti-trust issue in my opinion.

NRMP has rules to make the process ethical that, unfortunately, are violated by both parties.

Nevertheless, if you feel compelled to do so, you can file a complaint with the Justice Dept.'s Antitrust Division.

Interesting that some want to limit the number of schools an applicant can apply to. To me, that seems like it would hurt the middle and lower classes more than ED does as they would have less opportunities to compare costs/aid than available now while giving a further advantage to the wealthy who don’t have to worry about price.

The NRMP match process is basically one of only two entities (the other being major league baseball) in the entire country who have been exempted from the Sherman Antitrust Act which was passed in 1890 to prohibit abusive monopolies

@shortnuke

Actually I think it would be very difficult to enforce specific performance on these “agreements.” Very similar to restrictive employment contracts. Courts are not going to affect someone’s livelihood except in the most narrow of circumstances.

The anti trust comes in that ED restricts choice and is monopolistic. When you inform competitors not to do business with a kid, it’s an antitrust problem.

I look at ED as a single bid contract. The student has lots of choices before he actually submits his application. No one is restricting his choices and he can apply to any school he wants or no schools at all in the ED round.

I just applied for a contract job and one question was whether I had any other jobs I was waiting hear about for the same time period. I could say no even if I had bid on one, but it is a small group of companies that control these contracts and if I said no when in fact I had bid on others, the companies would probably find out. If I want their contracts, I have to play by their rules.

How does ED reduce competition?

Any student can choose to apply ED to any college of his/her choice that offers it or to no college at all and just apply EA or RD.
Every college is welcome to offer an ED plan or not, as it chooses.
There is no monopoly. Students have plenty of choices of colleges, and colleges have a glut of applicants from among whom to choose.

When I bid on a contract, I often suspect that the bidding process is entirely for show and that the potential client has already selected a vendor. I don’t mind a client having a preferred vendor but I get angry and resentful when I waste my time and energy bidding on a contract that was never really available no matter how well qualified I am.

To me the problem with ED isn’t the affordability angle, it’s the lack of transparency regarding how open the process is to non-hooked applicants.

To all those saying that this couldn’t fall under the purview of any sort of antitrust regulation, I simply remind you that back in the early 90s the Ivies and MIT were investigated, and so entered into an agreement to stop sharing plans for pricing (though they did, as seems obligatory, not admit to any wrongdoing)—so there’s precedent for viewing high-end colleges as a cartel. If ED/SCEA is found to have the effect of eliminating competition, then there’s your basis for a case right there.

Note: Not saying there’s really a there there, just saying it isn’t as far-fetched as some seem to be saying here.

“Interesting that some want to limit the number of schools an applicant can apply to. To me, that seems like it would hurt the middle and lower classes more than ED does as they would have less opportunities to compare costs/aid than available now while giving a further advantage to the wealthy who don’t have to worry about price.”

If lower or middle income students choose their schools wisely (and don’t get caught up in the frenzy), then they don’t need to apply to 25 schools. They will have terrific aid options at the 6-8 schools they applied to. Truthfully, that statement applies to the vast majority of students, because the vast majority of students do not live in 1% families.

Requirements contracts have never been illegal per se for antitrust purposes, much less so in this particular industry where, because all customers’ requirement is essentially 1, every contract is ultimately a requirements contract. And it’s essentially impossible to describe college admissions as “monopolistic.” I don’t know of a single industry, other than maybe food service, where there are as many different suppliers offering products that are perfect substitutes for one another to consumers.

The difference between enforcing ED agreements and openly collaborating to avoid competition on financial aid offers is pretty significant. ED is chosen voluntarily by the consumer, and it isn’t the exclusive pathway to admission. And back then, the Ivies plus MIT arguably had close to a monopoly on prestige university education in the Northeast.

@dfbdfb The 1990’s case was different in that the schools were colluding in their offers of financial aid to ensure that all their FA offerings were similar. This could absolutely harm applicants.

If I am sitting here at my desk, the phone rings, and it’s a headhunter on the line. He tells me he’s got my perfect job. I am free to take the job even though I have already accepted my current job. My employer can’t do a whole lot, except in very limited circumstances. Application to a school is no different. You get accepted ED to School A and then School B comes along and makes you an offer your can’t refuse. But wait, there is some secret “agreement” between the schools that you can’t make offers to my accepted kids (and my accepted kids can’t go to your school even if it is a better deal) – that’s a restraint of trade.

SCEA and EA is a great way to go. It allows a student to know in mid December if they are admitted. They do not have to give a commitment until the regular commit day in May. If they do not get in, or do not receive the aid they need they are free to apply to other schools and see what kind of packages they get. I can see the problems with ED. Forcing a kid to take a spot at a school that early in the process is absurd and there are few things in life that you cannot back out of if you change your mind, even as an adult. So we expect 17 year olds to make this decision in October of their senior year? And once they click send on the app they cannot change their minds?? As you can tell, I have never been a fan of ED and never recommend to a kid that they take that route.