A turning point for student mobility: How the DIGNITY Act could redefine America's academic gateways
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
On Friday, a proposed class-action suit filed in Boston federal court alleged that 32 elite institutions, among them Columbia University, Duke University, and the University of Pennsylvania, conspired to keep tuition artificially high by exploiting early decision commitments to limit competition and erode applicants' bargaining power.
The mechanics of the alleged collusion
Early decision admissions require students to apply months ahead of regular deadlines and to commit to enrolling if accepted, regardless of competing offers or financial aid prospects.
While such applicants are often admitted at higher rates, critics argue the system benefits wealthier families who can commit without waiting for comparative aid packages.
According to the complaint, the universities entered into agreements not to recruit or offer better deals to one another's early decision admits. This arrangement, plaintiffs argue, allowed the institutions to control pricing, inflate tuition, and disadvantage both early decision and regular decision applicants.
Violation of antitrust law
The plaintiffs, former students of Wesleyan University and two other schools, claim the arrangement violates US antitrust law.
'Early decision applicants lose choice and negotiation leverage, while regular decision applicants are left to scramble for an artificially diminished number of admission slots doled out at lower acceptance rates,' said Benjamin Brown, lead attorney for the case, to Reuters.
The suit also asserts that universities misled students by portraying early decision agreements as legally binding, despite the lack of legal enforceability.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The institutions named
Beyond Columbia, Duke, and Penn, the defendants include Amherst College, Northwestern University, Vassar College, Wesleyan University, the University of Chicago, and Johns Hopkins University. The Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE), a network of private liberal arts institutions, is also cited, accused of facilitating the alleged anti-competitive practices through data sharing and policy alignment.
No immediate defence
Columbia and Penn declined to comment, while Duke, Vassar, Wesleyan, and others offered no immediate response. COFHE also remained silent. Legal experts note that institutions often withhold public statements in early litigation stages to avoid jeopardising legal strategy.
Potential fallout
The plaintiffs seek damages for tuition overcharges affecting early decision applicants since 2021 and some regular decision students.
They also aim to ban binding early decision practices outright, a move that could force a significant shift in how elite universities shape their incoming classes.
Should the court rule in the plaintiffs' favour, the decision could upend decades of admissions strategy and dismantle a process long accused of perpetuating socioeconomic disparities.
A system under scrutiny
This legal challenge adds to growing criticism of US college admissions following the Supreme Court's dismantling of race-conscious admissions policies in 2023. While universities have defended early decision as a tool for yield management and campus planning, opponents view it as a mechanism that deepens inequality by locking students into commitments before they can fully assess their financial options.
With billions in potential tuition revenue on the line and the admissions landscape already in flux, the case could mark a decisive moment for transparency and competition in American higher education.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Alaska summit: Putin hoodwinks Trump, yet again
Russian President Vladimir Putin had a broad smile on his face when the two leaders appeared before cameras. And well he might: He bamboozled his American counterpart — as anyone observing their relationship over the past two decades knew he would. Putin scored a victory the moment his feet touched American soil: With a warrant outstanding from the International Criminal Court, he can't travel to 124 of the 193 UN member nations without risking arrest. By inviting him to the US and literally rolling out a red carpet for him, Trump granted Putin a level of legitimacy denied to him by two-thirds of the world. The good news from the summit is that no deal was announced: Any such 'agreement' would simply have been another case of two foreign powers divvying up land over which they had no rightful claim, against the wishes of people who resided there. But lack of such a document is cold comfort for the Ukrainians: Trump had preemptively surrendered to Putin's most important conditions long before reaching Alaska. Barely three weeks into his second term, Trump granted Putin's greatest demand: Denial to Ukraine of the possibility of joining NATO. After the dissolution of the USSR, 14 European nations, which had been under de facto Soviet control, joined the world's most powerful military alliance, and Russia hasn't dared to invade any of them since. Ukraine was never part of NATO — and Putin has explicitly demanded that it never be offered membership. That might have been part of a deal ending the war: Russia might give up all (or at least some) of the Ukrainian territory it has seized, and in return, Ukraine might agree to set aside hopes of joining NATO. But Trump offered that up proactively, without getting anything in return: On February 12, his Secretary of Defence said, 'The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.' One rule of negotiations is to avoid tossing away one's most valuable chip before sitting down at the table. A second key Russian demand was an end to US military aid for Ukraine, and Trump capitulated on that as well. Under President Joe Biden, the US provided more aid to Ukraine than any other nation did: 175 billion dollars' worth, the lion's share of which was military-related. Without this aid, Ukraine might not have been able to withstand the full impact of Putin's assault. In March, Trump cut off military aid cold, then played a back-and-forth game for months. In July, he permitted European nations to buy US armaments (to the financial benefit of American military contractors) and donate the weapons to Ukraine. That's somewhat better than a complete arms embargo — but nowhere near the support necessary to hold Russia off for long. While running for his current term, Trump often vowed that he'd end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. When the Alaska summit began, he'd been in office for nearly 5,000 hours; it ended with him unable to achieve a ceasefire, let alone a permanent end to the conflict. This all must come as a shock to the citizens of India. Just two weeks ago, Trump walloped them with the highest tariff rate of any nation on Earth: 25 per cent across the board, and an additional 25 per cent as punishment for buying oil from Russia. 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,' he said, in purported explanation of his action. 'Because of this, I will be substantially raising the tariff paid by India to the USA.' A war machine whose commander he welcomed warmly, and then gave his tacit blessing to carry right on? What, Indians may ask, does Trump even want? If he's trying to stop the war in Ukraine, why doesn't he crack down on the nation that's actually causing it? Why strong-arm a friend and partner like India as a roundabout way to (maybe) put some indirect pressure on Russia, while putting no pressure whatsoever on Russia itself? While India labours under a 50 per cent tariff, the rate imposed on Russia is half that (perhaps even less — it's impossible to tell for sure). What does it all mean? Trump's goal here is simple: He's trying to bully his way into a Nobel Peace Prize. Reportedly, he even called up the Prime Minister of Norway (whose nation administers the award), likely to demand he knuckle under. That isn't how Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr, or Nelson Mandela got their wreaths. Trump believes that if he can slap his name on as many bogus peace treaties as possible, he'll be able to intimidate the committee in Oslo — hence his claim to have brokered a May ceasefire between India and Pakistan, which India has made clear was arranged without his interference. Where are we left after a whirlwind summit that achieved absolutely nothing? Exactly where we were beforehand, but with a few illusions stripped away. The first illusion was that Putin had any interest in ending his invasion of Ukraine with a deal rather than a no-terms surrender. The second was that Trump had any intention of stopping him. The writer is author of Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God: Tracing the Ramayana Through India and Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
US Senators, including Chuck Schumer, slam Donald Trump over 15% cut on Nvidia, AMD AI chip sales to China in an open letter; say: Our national security and military readiness relies upon ...'
Donald Trump Six Senate Democrats have sent an open letter to President Donald Trump , asking him to reconsider his decision to permit tech giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) to sell advanced AI semiconductor chips to China. The group of senators include Chuck Schumer , Mark Warner , Elizabeth Warren, Jack Reed , Jeanne Shaheen and Christopher Coons. They warned that the sale of specific chips—Nvidia's H20 and AMD 's MI308—could potentially bolster China's military capabilities. The senators' letter was a response to a recent announcement by Trump, which granted export licenses to the companies in exchange for a 15% share of the revenue from these sales. Here's Senators' full letter to Donald Trump on Nvidia, AMD chip sales to China Dear President Trump: by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Book Nikoo Homes from ₹1.2 Cr* Onwards Nikoo Homes Sadahalli Learn More Undo We write to urge you to reverse your decision to allow AMD and Nvidia to sell advanced AI semiconductor chips ('covered chips') to the People's Republic of China ('PRC'), in exchange for a fee. These sales to a leading adversary run counter to U.S. national security interests, and the collection of fees appear to violate U.S. statutes and may even be unconstitutional. Our export controls exist to ensure that American goods and technologies are protected from our adversaries. To ensure such protection, export laws explicitly state that, '[n]o fee may be charged in connection with the submission, processing, or consideration of any application for a license or other authorization or other request.' Yet on August 11, 2025, you stated that: 'I want 20 percent if I'm going to approve [these licenses] for [Nvidia (and AMD)] and '[Nvidia] said, 'Would you make it 15?' So we negotiate a little deal'. This 'negotiated deal,' allowing American semiconductor manufacturers to pay a 15 percent fee for the ability to sell critically sensitive technology to our adversary, blatantly violates the purpose of export control laws. Additionally, your spokesperson has indicated that your administration may be considering this form of 'deal making' for other exports. A cornerstone of U.S artificial intelligence strategy for years has been to protect America's advantage in AI computing capability and access to leading-edge hardware, compared to the PRC and other key adversaries. AI represents a crucial enabling technology that is critical to the future of everything from finance to healthcare, manufacturing, and national security. The PRC seeks to use AI to strengthen its military systems like hypersonics, as well as its communications, surveillance, battlefield decisionmaking processes. In April, your administration placed export controls on the flow of Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips to the PRC, identifying the national security risk of the PRC's military having access to these advanced AI chips. However, only months later, following industry lobbying, you have flippantly reversed that decision with no coherent explanation for how the national security risks you had in April have been mitigated in August. Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains. The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies. The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm. We again urge your Administration to quickly reverse course and abandon this reckless plan to trade away U.S. technology leadership. In order to assist the public in its understanding of this proposed deal, we request the following information by August 22: 1. What entities or parties were involved in the 'negotiation' that resulted in the 15 percent payment requirement as a condition for granting a license to sell covered chips to the PRC? 2. What laws, regulations, or other factors were identified, raised, evaluated, and/or otherwise determined to be relevant in those negotiations, including any legal opinions provided by Administration attorneys used to inform the legality of various approached proposed during those deliberations? 3. Who was responsible for determining that this arrangement complies with United States laws, regulations, and international obligations? 4. Describe the manner in which the 15 percent fee will be determined and collected. 5. What individual(s) or entities are responsible for making the determination and collection identified in item 4? 6. List all purposes to which the 15 percent fee payments will be directed once collected. 7. What other companies are under consideration for this kind of deal utilizing export control laws? Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. What Nvidia has to say on its AI chips' alleged China military use An Nvidia spokesperson said that the company's H20 chips do not enhance anyone's military capabilities. 'The H20 would not enhance anyone's military capabilities, but would have helped America attract the support of developers worldwide and win the AI race. Banning the H20 cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, without any benefit,' a Nvidia spokesperson told CNBC. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 Review: Changing The Game AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Big tech companies accused of bending H-1B rules with job listings
Amid tech layoffs, major US firms face allegations of bypassing hiring rules by directing job applicants to immigration or 'global mobility' teams instead of standard channels, a Newsweek report said. Critics argue such practices favour H-1B workers over US graduates, keeping Americans out of jobs. The Trump administration plans reforms to prioritise American workers. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Popular in NRI 1. London suffers most job losses after tax hikes Amid mass layoffs at major tech firms, the companies are now facing allegations of bypassing hiring rules in mandatory local newspaper job ads. Regulations require these roles to be offered first to US-born workers, but a Newsweek report said the ads directed applicants to immigration or 'global mobility' departments, indicating the jobs were aimed at immigrant a website seeking out H-1B roles to share them with Americans, told Newsweek that Americans are not even aware that major tech companies are routinely discriminating against them. "At a time when unemployment for college graduates is shifting sharply upward, it is important to call out hiring discrimination that could keep Americans unemployed," they also said that recruitment for these roles is done separately from the companies standard recruitment process."These unusual application methods are likely to drive fewer applications than normal processes like posting ads on the company job board or on mainstream career sites like LinkedIn," they Online has not independently verified this Newsweek report cited a San Francisco Chronicle advertisement given by OpenAI. It said it was hiring a software engineer but the resumes were to be sent to the "global mobilty team".Another tech company, Instacard , offered multiple positions, with a similar department taking applications, while Udemy, an online learning platform, wanted a director of marketing analytics and data science, with resumes to be sent to "immigration@ the Newsweek report H-1B programme allows US employers, especially in the tech sector, to hire foreign professionals in specialty occupations. Indian nationals make up a large share of H-1B recipients each year, and the program is a key pathway for many to transition from US universities into full-time H-1B programme remains a contentious issue in US politics. While critics argue that it harms domestic workers and depresses wages, supporters, including many business leaders and universities, view it as vital for maintaining a competitive edge in technology, science, and research.(With TOI inputs)
