A new antitrust class action lawsuit alleges that 16 of the nation's top schools, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have worked together unlawfully to artificially reduce the amount of financial aid they provide to admitted students and effectively fix the net price of attendance for almost two decades.
The complaint, which was filed in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges the schools, known as the 568 Presidents Group, have violated the terms of an antitrust exemption allowing need-blind schools to collude with one another on a formula for financial aid and are failing to admit students on a fully need-blind basis. One anonymous university president who refused to join the group described it as an "insider's game," the complaint said.
The lawuit aims to end the actions of the schools and recover damages for those who allege they have been harmed by the group's actions.
“We have conducted a multi-year investigation of these practices, which we allege are unlawful, and we plan to vindicate the rights of more than 170,000 financial aid students and their families whom we believe have been overcharged by these elite universities,” Robert Gilbert, one of the lawyers on the case, said in a statement.
A spokesperson for MIT said the school is reviewing the filing and will "respond in court in due time."
Along with MIT, several Ivy League schools were listed as being involved in the conspiracy, including Brown, Dartmouth and Yale. Harvard was not among the schools in the 568 Group. According to the complaint, Harvard never joined because its financial-aid formula would have led to financial-aid packages that were smaller than what Harvard wanted to give students.
Among the lawyers for the plaintiffs is Eric Rosen, who led the prosecution in the Varsity Blues scandal.
“Varsity Blues took on the side door of admissions. This case takes on the back door—alleging that, while conspiring together on a method for awarding financial aid, which raises net tuition prices, defendants also favor wealthy applicants in making admissions decisions. The law does not allow them to do both,” Rosen said in a statement.
