A lawsuit accuses top universities, including Cornell and MIT, of favoring wealthy applicants through unethical admissions practices.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal lawsuit filed against several elite universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, MIT, and Cornell University, accuses them of forming a “price-fixing cartel” that systematically disadvantaged low-income students while favoring wealthy applicants. The plaintiffs, a group of former students, filed a new motion Monday demanding $685 million in damages from the implicated institutions, as reported by The Hill.
The lawsuit, originally filed in Illinois in 2022, alleges that these universities colluded to inflate the net cost of attendance for financial aid recipients by using a shared and unfair methodology to determine awards. It further claims that the universities prioritized admissions for students from affluent families or those with significant donation potential. These practices, the plaintiffs argue, constitute a breach of ethical admissions standards.
Specific examples cited in the case include allegations that a former Georgetown University president facilitated the admission of 80 students based primarily on their families’ financial contributions or donation capacity. The lawsuit also accuses the University of Pennsylvania of favoring applicants classified as individuals of “special interest,” a designation presumed to be tied to familial wealth or connections.
The institutions deny the accusations. In a statement, MIT rejected claims of financial favoritism in admissions. “MIT has no history of wealth favoritism in its admissions; quite the opposite. After years of discovery in which millions of documents were produced that provide an overwhelming record of independence in our admissions process, plaintiffs could cite just a single instance in which the recommendation of a board member helped sway the decisions for two undergraduate applicants,” the statement read.
The University of Pennsylvania has similarly faced scrutiny, with allegations that its admissions process boosted the chances of applicants tied to influential or wealthy families. Defense attorneys have dismissed the plaintiffs’ proposed $685 million in damages as unfounded, calling them the result of “junk science.”
The case centers on accusations that these universities engaged in antitrust violations by artificially inflating the cost of attendance for students receiving financial aid. The federal lawsuit alleges that this practice unfairly disadvantaged students with limited financial means while enriching the universities.
Despite the schools’ denials, the allegations have sparked widespread criticism of admissions practices at elite institutions. Advocacy groups and public figures have called for greater transparency in admissions processes to ensure equal access for students from all socioeconomic backgrounds. As the lawsuit progresses, it promises to intensify the debate over fairness and equity in higher education.