A new class-action lawsuit has revealed troubling allegations that some of the nation’s most prestigious universities admit students based on wealth and family connections, rather than merit. The legal filings, which have come to light in a price-fixing case originally filed in 2022, claim that wealthy parents, including major donors, are given special consideration during the admissions process, with some students being accepted despite academic qualifications falling short.
The lawsuit targets 17 elite schools, including MIT, Georgetown, and the University of Pennsylvania, alleging that these institutions colluded to minimize competition for students and reduce the financial aid they would offer. The revelations offer an unprecedented look into the behind-the-scenes decision-making at top universities, where connections and potential donations appear to have influenced admissions decisions.
One of the most striking examples comes from Georgetown University, where it was revealed that the former president of the university placed a student on a “president’s list” after meeting her and her wealthy father at an exclusive Idaho conference known as “summer camp for billionaires.” This incident highlights the preferential treatment some students allegedly receive based on their family’s wealth and connections, a practice that has long been suspected but seldom exposed.
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), emails from Stuart Schmill, the Dean of Admissions, reveal that four out of six applicants recommended by board chairman Robert Millard were admitted, including two who were otherwise unqualified. In one email, Schmill acknowledges that while Millard downplayed his influence, he still sent detailed notes on the applicants and later met with Schmill to discuss their admission priority. MIT has denied these claims, maintaining that their admissions process is fair and independent.
The lawsuit alleges that these universities conspired to reduce financial aid offerings, providing far less support to students than would have been the case in a truly competitive, merit-based system. According to Robert Gilbert, the plaintiffs’ attorney, the actions of the universities resulted in less aid being given to students, undermining the fairness of the admissions process.
Since the lawsuit’s initiation, ten of the schools involved, including Brown, Columbia, and Yale, have reached settlements totaling $284 million. These settlements provide compensation to current and former students whose financial aid may have been unfairly reduced over the last two decades.
New court filings have also revealed that some schools, like the University of Notre Dame, admitted students based on family connections rather than academic merit. Emails from Don Bishop, former associate vice president for enrollment at Notre Dame, detailed how the 2012 admissions class included students with poor academic records, primarily admitted due to their family’s financial contributions or potential donations.
Bishop’s emails describe the students as benefiting from “massive allowances” for their family’s wealth, with Bishop bluntly stating, “We allowed their high gifting or potential gifting to influence our choices more this year than last year.” These revelations raise serious questions about the extent to which financial contributions influence admissions, particularly at institutions that claim to uphold merit-based criteria.
Despite the mounting evidence, many of the accused universities, including MIT, Penn, and Notre Dame, have denied the claims. They argue that the lawsuit is without merit and that their admissions processes are fair and based on academic achievement. MIT, for example, denied any history of favoring wealthy students and emphasized that only a single instance of board member influence had been cited.
The lawsuit also challenges the notion of “need-blind” admissions, claiming that the universities’ use of financial contributions in the admissions process violates the Congressional exemption that allowed their collaboration. This arrangement, which permitted the schools to set joint financial aid policies, has since expired, leaving the universities vulnerable to legal action.
As the legal battle unfolds, the plaintiffs hope to expose a system that they argue perpetuates inequality and favors the wealthy, making it harder for students from lower-income backgrounds to gain admission to top universities.
Read more: