Elite US universities including Columbia, Duke and Penn accused of colluding to hike tuition through early decision scheme
The promise of a fair shot at higher education has long been a cornerstone of the American academic ideal. Yet a new lawsuit contends that some of America’s most revered universities have been quietly undermining that principle, not through admissions quotas or test score thresholds, but by using the very mechanism designed to give students an edge: the early decision process.On Friday, a proposed class-action suit filed in Boston federal court alleged that 32 elite institutions, among them Columbia University, Duke University, and the University of Pennsylvania, conspired to keep tuition artificially high by exploiting early decision commitments to limit competition and erode applicants’ bargaining power.
The mechanics of the alleged collusion
Early decision admissions require students to apply months ahead of regular deadlines and to commit to enrolling if accepted, regardless of competing offers or financial aid prospects. While such applicants are often admitted at higher rates, critics argue that the system benefits wealthier families who can commit without waiting for comparative aid packages.According to the complaint, the universities entered into agreements not to recruit or offer better deals to one another’s early decision admits. This arrangement, plaintiffs argue, allowed the institutions to control pricing, inflate tuition, and disadvantage both early decision and regular decision applicants.
Violation of antitrust law
The plaintiffs, former students of Wesleyan University and two other schools, claim the arrangement violates US antitrust law.“Early decision applicants lose choice and negotiation leverage, while regular decision applicants are left to scramble for an artificially diminished number of admission slots doled out at lower acceptance rates,” said Benjamin Brown, lead attorney for the case.The suit also asserts that universities misled students by portraying early decision agreements as legally binding, despite the lack of legal enforceability.
The institutions named
Beyond Columbia, Duke, and Penn, the defendants include Amherst College, Northwestern University, Vassar College, Wesleyan University, the University of Chicago, and Johns Hopkins University. The Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE), a network of private liberal arts institutions, is also cited, accused of facilitating the alleged anti-competitive practices through data sharing and policy alignment.
No immediate defence
Columbia and Penn declined to comment, while Duke, Vassar, Wesleyan, and others offered no immediate response. COFHE also remained silent. Legal experts note that institutions often withhold public statements in early litigation stages to avoid jeopardising legal strategy.
Potential fallout
The plaintiffs seek damages for tuition overcharges affecting early decision applicants since 2021 and some regular decision students. They also aim to ban binding early decision practices outright, a move that could force a significant shift in how elite universities shape their incoming classes.Should the court rule in the plaintiffs’ favour, the decision could upend decades of admissions strategy and dismantle a process long accused of perpetuating socioeconomic disparities.
A system under scrutiny
This legal challenge adds to growing criticism of US college admissions following the Supreme Court’s dismantling of race-conscious admissions policies in 2023. While universities have defended early decision as a tool for yield management and campus planning, opponents view it as a mechanism that deepens inequality by locking students into commitments before they can fully assess their financial options.With billions in potential tuition revenue on the line and the admissions landscape already in flux, the case could mark a decisive moment for transparency and competition in American higher education.
