Uptapped capacity that adds cost to the admissions office.
I can make the application cycle 6 months and get through it with mostly my existing admission counselor staff or put everything into 3 months and have to bring in contractors/temps to help.
1 Like
Some of the vitriol directed at the plaintiffs is surprising to me and seems unjustified. The claim is that ED is an anticompetitive practice contrary to law. That is not a ridiculous claim. It is also not ridiculous to point out that it tends to benefit affluent families who arenāt price sensitive (indeed, one could argue that at some of these schools that is the entire purpose).
Itās been pretty clear over the last few decades that competition in financial aid has had a significant effect on cost and access at many selective schools. Perhaps folks defending ED can explain why it isnāt an anticompetitive practice or why, if it is, it is worth preserving despite the flaws.
1 Like
I havenāt - and wonāt - defend ED as a channel for admissions. I also wonāt side with someone that was likely informed of the +ās and -ās of the application process, participated in that process and when the outcome wasnāt what they desired, cried foul.
Thereās 3k+ Colleges and Universities in the country. Just about every University that someone can point to, the folks on this forum can point to 5 others that are ājust like itā.
Within the boundaries of the law (which I suppose is what this lawsuit is set to test) I support any private university that wants to set whatever application standard/process that they see fits their mission.
1 Like
But isnāt the issue that those processes rest on agreements with other market actors to prevent competition?
I donāt think anyone is suggesting these schools shouldnāt be able to admit students early if they choose.
1 Like
How do you define āagreementsā and āother market actorsā?
ED asks for an applicant to commit to them and in exchange for that theyāll get preferential review/treatment within the application process. I canāt come up with them off the top of my head but I know weāve had people suggest that at some schools ED doesnāt even have a higher admit rate than EA.
Thereās other areaās in society where thereās preferential treatment given to people that commit early. Though many of them those might not have the long-ranging impact of a college education.
The complaint deals with this starting in paragraph 105.
As far as preferential treatment for early commitment, thatās not the issue. Enforcement by other institutions is the issue.
Schools like MIT, Stanford, Princeton use a form of non-binding early admission which allows students to apply RD everywhere else (even EA at some schools) and compare offers. That avoids some of the issues but not all, as these programs still contain restrictions that could be seen as anticompetitive. Still, itās not hard to imagine these programs operating just fine by removing those restrictions.
Speaking of MIT, and back to the issue of cooperation, hereās text from their description of their EA program:
āHowever, if you apply to another school during Early Action that does have a restriction, MIT requires that you respect those rules. So for example, if you apply to another school that is āsingle choiceāā meaning that you can only apply there during the early periodāyou may not simultaneously apply to MIT, and if youāre admitted somewhere ābinding,ā then even if we admit you, you must go there instead. So choose wisely!ā (Bold added for emphasis)
Ok, everything you list about applies to REA - I might argue itās more restrictive than ED but it doesnāt have the commitment aspect ED has.
Iām still not sure what the foundation of the lawsuit is. Iām not a lawyer but what about is it they are suggesting breaks the law (and what law?).
They are claiming violations of antitrust laws. That body of law restricts agreements that restrain economic competition. See Sherman Act.
Airline tickets, sometimes theater/concert tickets, hotel/rental properties to name a few.
3 Likes
Another example is MIT, which gives that as the reason for having EA and RD.
Other schools do rolling probably for the same reason.
UCs in California just have an early RD deadline, with no EA or ED, giving lots of time to read applications. CSUs have the same deadline, probably to keep things simple for applicants applying to both.
1 Like
Which is no different from applying EA to any other private college. MIT presumably puts that because applicants likely apply to other private schools that have ED or REA.
There are certainly a lot of folks here on CC who really dislike ED. But there are also plenty of students who welcome the chance to have the application process done in December. I was one of them - about 50 years ago - when most students applied to no more than 5 schools, each with its own application. Putting away the Smith-Corona and focusing on the rest of senior year without more essays or worry was incentive enough to proceed that way (and it avoided additional application fees, essays, and recs.)
Neither FP nor FA applicants get to see if someone else might give you a better price, but upfront, you know what the price is and accept it. As mentioned above, not unlike when you make many purchases.
For some students, the āearly noā can be a signal to make some shifts in their application or list.
If you donāt like it, donāt do it, but there are many for whom this is indeed an option that works well for them. While this lawsuit isnāt about the merits of ED, we often talk about that.
- I would guess that many people in this group are high earners looking for an advantage.
- Colleges are struggling. And for many outside of the top 20, ED is going to help keep the lights on.
- Birth rates started dropping in 2008, so ED is only going to become more important.
Overall, I think that this is an interesting lawsuit. But it also annoys me. When my older kids were looking at colleges we told them that we could pay X amount and they needed to look at schools where the NPC met that goal. And they did. Kid #3 graduates next year and we will follow the same path. Iām sorry that these kids feel disappointed. But thatās life. For most people, they buy the best thing that you can afford that meets their needs. Some people can buy whatever they want. It is what it is.
I would feel better disposed towards ED if all colleges gave a financial aid and merit pre-read before the ED commitment.
3 Likes
You would just need colleges to stick by their NPC, or at least within a ballpark range. Require the submission of FAFSA application along with ED application, so that the numbers are available for both sides to see what the NPC shows.
For those that offer any merit, the merit pre read is a big part too, though.
1 Like
Your point is that it is the collusion between schools which makes it illegal. Iād agree that this is their best legal argument. The schools will likely argue that ED is voluntary, and that a small percentage of students choose that option.
If I were the plaintiff, Iād also argue that there is no actual harm to the schools to justify the collusion. Turning down an ED offer has the same impact as turning down an EA or RD offer on the school. The non-binding schools also have this argument.