New court documents reveal that certain elite U.S. universities are allegedly offering preferential admissions treatment to children of affluent and influential families. These insights come as part of a class-action lawsuit that was filed in 2022 against 17 prestigious institutions in a Chicago federal court.
One notable instance involved the former president of Georgetown University, who included a potential student on his “president’s list” after a personal meeting with her and her affluent father at a conference in Idaho described as a “summer camp for billionaires.” These recent disclosures highlight a practice that has long been suspected, shedding light on the hidden processes within university administrations that appear to prioritize the admission of less qualified students due to their family connections and potential for future donations.
Stuart Schmill, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s dean of admissions, documented in a 2018 email that four of six candidates recommended by Robert Millard, the university’s board chairman, were accepted into the institution, including two individuals who would not have typically met admissions standards. Schmill noted that while Millard attempted to minimize his influence, he provided detailed insights on the candidates, indicating preferences for certain individuals during discussions with admissions staff.
These revelations contribute to an ongoing lawsuit asserting that 17 top colleges have colluded to limit competition for potential students and reduce the financial aid they provide, while simultaneously favoring children of high-profile donors. The plaintiffs allege that this illegal agreement resulted in significantly lower financial aid than would be available in a competitive environment, as articulated by attorney Robert Gilbert.
Since the initial filing, ten institutions have agreed to settlements amounting to $284 million, benefiting current and former students who may not have received adequate financial aid over the last two decades. Schools involved in these settlements include prestigious names such as Brown, Yale, and the University of Chicago. Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins is negotiating its settlement while California Institute of Technology, Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame, and the University of Pennsylvania are still contesting the lawsuit.
In defense, MIT has dismissed the accusations of favoritism in its admissions process. University spokesperson Kimberly Allen stated that there is no historical precedent for wealth bias in admissions, contrasting with a single instance cited by the plaintiffs regarding board member recommendations influencing decisions.
The University of Pennsylvania echoed this sentiment, describing the lawsuit as unfounded and asserting that there is no evidence supporting a bias towards students from families with financial ties to the school. Notre Dame officials expressed confidence in the qualifications of all their admitted students, although recent filings pointed out instances of admitting wealthy candidates with lower academic performance.
For instance, former Notre Dame enrollment vice president Don Bishop referenced in a 2012 email that an admitted group had poorer academic credentials than prior years, indicating that connections and financial histories significantly swayed admissions decisions. He concluded jokingly, hoping for more academically gifted offspring from wealthy families in the next admission cycle.
Recent court documents also indicated that full tuition payers may also receive advantages in admissions. A previous admissions director from Vanderbilt acknowledged that some students received favorable positions on waitlists if they did not require financial aid.
Historically, these 17 schools were part of a congressionally sanctioned consortium allowed to collaboratively devise financial aid strategies without breaching antitrust regulations, on the condition they upheld need-blind admissions policies. However, the lawsuit claims that this claimed neutrality is undermined by a consistent favoritism toward the children of alumni and benefactors, violating the terms of their Congressional exemption.
This organization formally disbanded recently as the allowance for collaboration expired, raising questions about the future of college admissions practices regarding equity and access to education.