College admission procedures today are not just complicated; they are unjustly harsh
In a significant development, a federal lawsuit filed on August 8 alleges that 32 elite universities, including Dartmouth, have violated antitrust laws through their use of binding early decision (ED) admissions policies. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, claims that these institutions have conspired to not compete for students admitted via ED at other schools, creating an anticompetitive agreement that is harmful to students.
The key arguments in the complaint include:
- Early Decision as an Anticompetitive Agreement: The lawsuit claims that these universities have conspired to not poach or offer better terms to ED admitted students from other institutions, effectively reducing competition for these students.
- Loss of Student Choice and Negotiation: Students admitted through ED lose the ability to compare financial aid offers from multiple schools because they must commit early without knowing all costs. This reduces their negotiating power and disadvantages students who need financial aid.
- Inflation of Tuition Prices: Because early decision limits price competition, colleges are incentivized to keep tuition and fees high, knowing students applying ED cannot shop around for better financial aid offers. This allegedly inflates costs and contributes to wealth inequality in higher education.
- Legal Issues with Binding Contracts on Minors: The complaint notes that many ED admittees are underage (around 17), raising questions about the legality of binding contracts that force them to enroll based on early decisions.
- Involvement of Financial Aid Consortium and Application Platforms: The Consortium on Financing Higher Education and application platforms (Common Application and Scoir) are accused of facilitating this coordination and information sharing that supports the ED conspiracy.
The lawsuit seeks damages for students harmed by inflated costs, an injunction to eliminate binding early decision programs, and broad reforms in college admissions and financial aid policies.
This lawsuit highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of the modern college application process. As students navigate this drawn-out and competitive landscape, it is essential to remember that one's sense of self-worth should not be tied to the college admissions process or its results.
In a personal anecdote, Mary Frances Ruskell, a graduate from her high school in Columbia, South Carolina, experienced the college application process firsthand. She was deferred from her first choice school but realized later that nothing had actually changed about her future or potential. Meanwhile, many students in her high school applied early action to Clemson University, a school that did not offer early decision but did offer early action.
The college admissions process has created a class-wide feeling of apprehension and anxiety for months, with students stopping the sharing of their application and admission status due to competition and stress. However, it is crucial to remember that every student in her high school class eventually got accepted into a college.
As the legal proceedings unfold, it remains to be seen how this lawsuit will impact the college admissions landscape. For now, students are advised to approach the process with a sense of perspective, understanding that their worth is not defined by the colleges they apply to or are accepted into.
- Pursuing the lawsuit, students may find solace in recognizing that investing in their own personal growth, education-and-self-development, and wellness can lead to a more balanced and rewarding perspective, improving their overall health.
- During the stressful college application process, it's essential for students to prioritize their learning, as expanding their knowledgebaseprepares them for the challenges ahead, fostering personal-growth and success in whichever institution they eventually attend.
