From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: the MIT anti-trust case
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:48:31 GMT

Please set followups appropriately.

The case cite for the MIT anti-trust case, if any of you wish to read
the district court opinion, is

United States v Brown University, 1992 WL 217440 (E D Pa).

It's also located in 1992-1 Trade Cases P 69,942.

It doesn't appear that it will be reported in F.Supp, so it might
only be available on Westlaw (and maybe Lexis--I didn't check that
service.)

Interesting fact that gives lie to the notion that schools were
operating solely with the best interests of poor students in mind: 
schools arrived at financial aid determinations
separately.  Then, at a Spring meeting in Wellesley, the colleges would
compare the determinations on a case-by-case method: "Due to time
limitations at the Spring meeting and the volume of cross-admitted
students, the schools spent no more than a few minutes discussing
[aid levels] for individual students.  During those few minutes allocated
to individual aid applicants, the schools could not and did not make a
genuine and concerted effort to assess accurately the aid applicant's
actual financial circumstances, notwithstanding the expressed purpose
of the Spring meeting . . . "  Id at *7.

Also: "The Ivy Overlap Group schools attempted to recruit Stanford [their
main competition] into the group for fear that Stanford was luring high
caliber students with merit scholarships and larger aid awards.  Stanford
refused the invitation upon its belief that overlap violated the antitrust
laws."  Id at *8.  (Apologies from me to Stanford for my false stated
belief that they participated in Overlap.) 

Also: "[F]ailure to comply with the Ivy Overlap Agreements could result
in severe sanctions from the other [member] institutions. . . . The few
instances where an Ivy Overlap Group member violated the provisions
of the Ivy Overlap Agreement provoked strong complaints from the other
Ivy Overlap Group members.  In October 1986, Princeton began awarding
$1,000 "research grants" to highly qualified undergraduates without
regard to need.  The other Ivy Overlap Group institutions . . . believed
that the awards violated . . . the Ivy Overlap Agreements.  As a result
of a series of complaints, Princeton agreed to abandon the awards."  Id
at *9.

Other highlights of the opinion.

*9-*11  rules that MIT is a commercial entity: "MIT's attempt
to disassociate the Overlap process from the commercial aspects of
higher education is pure sophistry."

*19: "The court is unconvinced because there is no evidence supporting
MIT's fatalistic prediction that the end of the Ivy Overlap Group 
necessarily would sound the death knell of need-blind admissions or
need-blind aid. . . .  Can the Ivy Overlap Group members' purposes'
be so fragile that their primary goal of having the most desirable
students outweighs their ability, without overlap, to pursue diligently
even an imperfect policy of promoting the virtue of student diversity
and the advantages of making available to needy students the benefits
of these elite educational institutions?  . . . The court thinks not.
If MIT and the other Ivy League schools were to so easily abandon these
objectives merely because overlap was not in play, then the court could
only conclude that their professed dedication to these ends was less than
sincere."
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: soc.college