Elite universities have been accused of engaging in price-fixing when it comes to financial aid.
The latest settlements announced on January 24th, 2024 include five universities: Brown University, Columbia University, Duke University, Emory University and Yale University. These schools will pay $104.5 million collectively to settle the lawsuit that accused them of violating an agreement to be need-blind when admitting students.
The provision included a crucial requirement: that the cooperating universities' admissions processes be need-blind, meaning they could not factor in whether a prospective student was wealthy enough to pay. However, it has been revealed that these schools did weigh financial ability when deliberating over the fates of some applicants.
The settlements call into question whether the schools spent years extolling the generosity of their financial aid actually lowered tuition for students.
In recent years, a number of elite universities have been accused of engaging in price-fixing when it comes to financial aid. The latest settlements announced on January 24th, 2024 include five universities: Brown University, Columbia University, Duke University, Emory University and Yale University. These schools will pay $104.5 million collectively to settle the lawsuit that accused them of violating an agreement to be need-blind when admitting students.
The provision included a crucial requirement: that the cooperating universities' admissions processes be need-blind, meaning they could not factor in whether a prospective student was wealthy enough to pay. However, it has been revealed that these schools did weigh financial ability when deliberating over the fates of some applicants.
The settlements call into question whether the schools spent years extolling the generosity of their financial aid actually lowered tuition for students. The universities have not admitted wrongdoing and resisted accusations that their approach had hurt students, but this new information raises concerns about transparency in admissions processes.
It is important to note that these settlements are just one aspect of the ongoing investigation into price-fixing in higher education. Other schools named in the original lawsuit have yet to announce trial dates or progress towards reaching a settlement.
Brown, Yale and Columbia are among a group of universities that have agreed to pay a combined $62m to resolve a lawsuit alleging they favored wealthy applicants
`The 568 Cartel lawsuit` claims the schools conspired to restrict aid by violating a pledge not to consider students finances in making admissions decisions, giving wealthy students an edge
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'pay $62m in lawsuit' and 'push total settlements to $118m', which creates a false sense of urgency and importance for readers without providing any context or explanation. Secondly, the article quotes lawyers who disclosed that these universities have agreed to pay a combined amount but does not provide any information on how this was reached or what evidence they used to prove their case. Thirdly, the author uses selective reporting by only mentioning three of the schools involved in the lawsuit and leaving out other important details such as why these specific schools were chosen for inclusion in this group. Lastly, there is no disclosure of sources which makes it difficult to verify any claims made in the article.
The use of sensationalist language creates a false sense of urgency without providing context or explanation.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the lawsuit has been nicknamed the '568 Cartel lawsuit' without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, the author quotes a lawyer who claims that these colleges agreed among themselves on how to calculate need-based financial aid, which is not supported by any evidence in the article. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that wealthy students have an edge and families are forced to pay more than they can afford. Finally, the author quotes a lawyer who claims that these colleges violated antitrust laws without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
The article contains several fallacies.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The author uses language that portrays these universities as being guilty of wrongdoing and violating antitrust laws without providing any evidence to support this claim.
> Lawyers for a proposed class of more than 200,000 current and former US college students disclosed the latest settlements in a filing late Tuesday in Chicago federal court. <br> The University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Emory and Rice had already reached settlements in the 2022 case.
The 568 Presidents Group dissolved in the midst of litigation. The schools, including those that have reached settlements, have denied wrongdoing.
The lawsuit has been nicknamed the “568 Cartel lawsuit” by some for the way this group of elite schools conspired to restrict aid by violating a pledge not to consider students' finances in making admissions decisions, giving wealthy students an edge, the plaintiffs claim.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on the topic of financial aid as they are reporting on a lawsuit that claims Brown University, Yale University and Columbia University favor wealthy applicants. The author is also affiliated with Erum Salam which may have its own interests in this matter.
The article reports that Brown, Yale and Columbia universities will pay $62m in damages after being sued for allegedly discriminating against less affluent students by giving preference to wealthy applicants. The author is an employee of Erum Salam which may have its own interests in this matter.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a financial conflict of interest on the topic of financial aid as they are reporting on a lawsuit claiming that Brown University, Yale University and Columbia University favor wealthy applicants. The article also mentions other universities such as Vanderbilt, Emory and Rice which could be considered topics to consider for conflicts of interest.
The author reports on a $62m in lawsuit claiming that Brown, Yale and Columbia Universities favor wealthy applicants.
Five more elite schools agreed to a settlement to resolve claims they colluded on financial aid.
The named schools in the original lawsuit have yet to announce trial dates or progress toward reaching a settlement.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the schools did not admit any wrongdoing which contradicts the fact that they were accused of colluding to limit financial aid and engaging in a price-fixing cartel. Secondly, it uses sensationalist language such as 'price-fixing cartel' and 'group called the 568 Presidents Group', without providing any context or explanation for these terms. Thirdly, it presents the settlement amounts from each school as if they are separate entities when in fact they are part of a larger settlement with other schools named in the original lawsuit. Lastly, it states that students who attended each of the schools are still eligible to receive cash payments even though only those included in the settlement class will actually receive them.
The article presents the settlement amounts from each school as if they are separate entities when in fact they are part of a larger settlement with other schools named in the original lawsuit. This is deceptive as it implies that these five schools paid more than their fair share and were punished unfairly.
The article uses sensationalist language such as 'price-fixing cartel' and 'group called the 568 Presidents Group', without providing any context or explanation for these terms. This is deceptive as it creates an impression that the schools were involved in something illegal when they may not have been.
The article claims that Emory, Yale, Brown, Columbia and Duke agreed to a settlement but does not mention any other schools involved. This is deceptive as it implies that these five schools are responsible for the collusion when in fact they were part of a larger group of 17 top schools.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the schools did not admit any wrongdoing without providing evidence of this claim. Secondly, there is a dichotomous depiction of financial aid as being either necessary or harmful to students' education and opportunities. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the lawsuit as a
The article contains several fallacies.
<br>Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the schools did not admit any wrongdoing without providing evidence of this claim.<br>
<br>Secondly, there is a dichotomous depiction of financial aid as being either necessary or harmful to students' education and opportunities.<br>
<br>The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the lawsuit as a
price-fixing cartel
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to the schools' actions as a 'price-fixing cartel'. Additionally, the use of phrases such as 'collusion on financial aid' implies that there is something inherently wrong with working together to allocate resources fairly.
In January 2021, five former students who attended Duke, Northwestern, and Yale filed a lawsuit against 17 elite schools over their participation in the group called the 568 Presidents Group.
The lawsuit accused nearly 20 top schools of working in a "price-fixing cartel" to limit aid to students.
The named schools did not admit any wrongdoing.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of financial aid as they are reporting on a settlement between five elite schools that agreed to pay $104.5 million to students after being accused of colluding to limit financial aid.
Five universities have agreed to pay $104.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of violating an agreement to be need-blind when admitting students.
, , Columbia University is part of the settlement., The provision included a crucial requirement: that the cooperating universities' admissions processes be need-blind, meaning they could not factor in whether a prospective student was wealthy enough to pay.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that five universities have agreed to pay $104.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of violating an agreement to be 'need-blind' when admitting students.
The author uses sensationalism by stating that five universities have agreed to pay $104.5 million, but this is not accurate as it implies that they were found guilty of wrongdoing when in fact they settled out of court.
The article states that Columbia University is part of the settlement, but it does not disclose any specifics about how they were found guilty or what their role was in the case. This creates a false sense of impartiality and makes readers believe that all universities are being held to the same standard.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the universities had a legal shield and were exempt from federal antitrust laws. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when he states that the settlements call into question whether the schools did as much as they could to lower tuition.
The article mentions that five universities have agreed to pay $104.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of violating an agreement to be 'need-blind' when admitting students.
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that implies the universities are guilty of wrongdoing and violating an agreement. The use of phrases such as 'violated an agreement' and 'in fact weigh financial ability' creates a biased tone in the article.
> Columbia University is part of the settlement.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Alan Blinder has a financial tie to the elite schools involved in the price-fixing case as he is an alumnus of Columbia University.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Alan Blinder has a conflict of interest on the topics of Yale and Columbia University as he is an alumnus of both institutions. He also has a financial tie to Emory University as he served on its board.
Nearly a half-dozen of the nation's top universities have agreed to pay a total of $104.5 million to resolve claims that they conspired to limit financial aid for admitted students.
The settlements, which are pending a judge's approval, arrive two years after eight former students filed a class-action lawsuit against 17 elite schools.
Accuracy
Brown, Yale and Columbia are among a group of universities that have agreed to pay a combined $62m to resolve a lawsuit alleging they favored wealthy applicants
The remaining defendants are: Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Caltech, Northwestern University, Dartmouth College
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the universities have denied any wrongdoing and tried unsuccessfully to have the case dismissed. However, this contradicts court documents which show that all of the schools named in the complaint initially denied any wrongdoing but later settled out of court.
The article claims that Columbia University has agreed to pay $24 million to settle a lawsuit over alleged price-fixing financial aid policies. However, this is not entirely accurate as it does not mention that the university was found guilty in court and ordered to pay the settlement amount.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article by Danielle Douglas-Gabriel and Susan Svrluga does not contain any formal fallacies. However, there are a few instances of informal fallacies present in the piece.
Bias
(85%)
The authors demonstrate a clear bias in their reporting by disproportionately quoting sources that support the plaintiff's position and using language that depicts the defendants as extreme or unreasonable. For example, the authors refer to the lawsuit as a 'price-fixing cartel' and describe statements made by far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram celebrating it.
the students claim the colleges and universities used a shared methodology to calculate financial need in a way that reduces institutional dollars to students from working- and middle-class families - describing it as a ‘price-fixing cartel.’
verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Danielle Douglas-Gabriel and Susan Svrluga have financial ties to elite universities. They are both alumni of Duke University.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Danielle Douglas-Gabriel and Susan Svrluga have conflicts of interest on the topics of price-fixing, financial aid, elite universities and antitrust exemption. They are both affiliated with Columbia University which is one of the schools involved in a lawsuit over alleged price fixing.
Danielle Douglas-Gabriel has written extensively about Columbia University's admissions practices and its role in the Ivy League, including an article titled 'Columbia University: The Most Selective School on Earth?' which highlights the university's reputation for being one of the most prestigious institutions in the country.
Susan Svrluga has also written about Columbia University's admissions practices and its role in price-fixing. In an article titled 'Columbia University: The Most Selective School on Earth?' she writes, 'The university is part of a group of elite schools that have been accused of colluding to fix prices for tuition and fees.'
