Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon

Rosenwald Hall, which houses the University’s College admissions office.

The University of Chicago, along with 31 other private, nonprofit institutions of higher education, was named in a class action lawsuit filed August 8 alleging the schools had colluded to “reduce or eliminate competition through use of the early decision process.”

The complaint accuses the defendant schools of binding students to early decision offers—despite a lack of legal enforceability—by colluding to prevent students from receiving and considering offers from other schools. The practice has significantly increased tuition costs for students who choose to apply under the early decision model, the plaintiffs argue.

The lawsuit, filed by four current and former students from among the defendant schools, seeks to represent students who, over the past four years, were admitted through early decision to any of the named schools, as well as regular decision admits who did not receive financial aid. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction preventing future collaboration between schools during the early decision process, along with any damages the court might award.

This is not the first time UChicago has been sued over its application and financial aid practices. In 2022, the University agreed to pay $13.5 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit alleging that it had conspired with 16 other schools to limit financial aid awards.

According to U.S. News & World Report, inflation-adjusted tuition at private institutions of higher education has increased 41 percent on average since 2005, from $21,476 to $48,591.

Like all of the schools named in the lawsuit, UChicago offers several rounds during which applications can be submitted, which it distinguishes as either “binding” or “non-binding.” Although the University does not acknowledge it institutionally, early application rounds are generally understood to have higher acceptance rates than the regular decision round.

The Common Data Set, which UChicago contributes to annually, defines the early decision program as a “​​plan that permits students to apply and be notified of an admission decision (and financial aid offer if applicable) well in advance of the regular notification date.”

In addition to early decision, the University also offers “early action” applications, which are due at the same time as early decision but are presented as non-binding. UChicago also recently began offering the Summer Student Early Notification program, which gives students who participate in the University’s pre-college summer courses a fast-track application process independent of the early and regular decision rounds.

UChicago does not publish data on the number of early decision applications it receives, nor does it publish the number of applicants it admits under the early decision plan. The University’s overall acceptance rate for the Class of 2028 was 4.48 percent.

The students’ lawsuit hinges on the distinction between binding and non-binding admissions rounds. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant schools have created a “core misrepresentation” within their application materials, namely “that an agreement to apply Early Decision to a school is a binding agreement by which the student is prevented from considering competing offers from other colleges.”

The lawsuit names several current and former admissions officers who have publicly stated that the early decision application is not legally binding, despite representations to the contrary. Instead, plaintiffs argue that the binding nature of the decision is created by the “coordinated agreement” between institutions not to accept applicants who were accepted early decision at other schools and to represent the acceptance conditions as mandatory.

The University’s “Early Decision Agreement”—which must be signed by an applicant, their parent or guardian, and the applicant’s college counselor— states in bold: “If you are accepted under an Early Decision plan, you must immediately withdraw the applications submitted to other colleges and make no additional applications to any other college in any country.”

The agreement also states that students applying for financial aid “do not need to withdraw other applications” until they have received their aid package. However, the early nature of the offer prevents students from comparing aid from other schools and selecting the most competitive package.

On its website, the University says it “meets 100% of [a student’s] demonstrated financial need” throughout their four years in the College.

The plaintiffs contend that even when schools purportedly allow students to exit the agreement for financial reasons, “[f]ew students are willing to risk the potential consequences of not attending a school after Early Decision admittance.”

“[S]tudents face the risk of boycott by other schools’ collusive enforcement of the Early Decision agreement, the immediate loss of the acceptance in hand, and the lower probability of admission in the remaining Regular Decision application process,” the lawsuit reads.

The University did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.