“Early decision” policies at top colleges and universities give applicants a firm answer (yes!) months before the usual decision date in spring. The student is all set — no more worrying. But it does lock him into a commitment to that school and whatever financial aid package it offers.
Could that be illegal? A group of students has filed a lawsuit against a number of the top universities with early decision, arguing that it’s part of an anticompetitive conspiracy to suppress competition.
Lawyer Allen Mendenhall looks at the case in today’s Martin Center article.
He writes:
The core problem, according to the complaint, is that early decision operates as what the plaintiffs call an “honor-bound agreement that imposes ethical obligations” rather than an enforceable contract. Without a binding contract, universities gain substantial leverage. As the lawsuit explains, “Defendant colleges and universities essentially force Early Decision admittees to be bound to the school that offered early admission by preventing students from receiving and comparing offers from other schools.” Yet students face no legal recourse if universities change tuition, programs, or financial-aid packages after acceptance.
The case has been filed in Massachusetts.
Mendenhall is of two minds about the case:
This case presents an unusual dilemma for conservatives. On the one hand, it offers a satisfying spectacle: Elite, left-leaning universities — institutions that frequently champion egalitarian principles — stand accused of operating a cartel that widens wealth gaps and entrenches inequality. The hypocrisy is rich!
On the other hand, many conservatives harbor deep skepticism toward both antitrust enforcement and class-action litigation. Antitrust law expands government intervention in private business arrangements and can discourage legitimate cooperation. Class-action lawsuits, meanwhile, often enrich plaintiffs’ attorneys while delivering minimal benefits to class members — and they can impose crushing costs on defendants regardless of actual wrongdoing.
If the case survives the inevitable motion to dismiss and results in a legal decision, the Martin Center will cover it.