Emory University’s alleged departure from the 568 Presidents Group, also known as the 568 Cartel, in 2012 was a step toward ethical conduct, but the echoes of the Cartel’s collusion still reverberate. The University’s recent $18.5 million settlement in the 568 Cartel case, which accused the University of financial aid price-fixing, is a stark reminder that withdrawing from the questionable practice does not absolve the University from past involvement. This case alleges that 17 elite universities, including Brown University (R.I), Columbia University (N.Y.) and Yale University (Conn.), conspired to inflate the net cost of attendance for students receiving financial aid without due cause. The case brings into focus the question of Emory’s commitment to equitable access to education. This is not only a case study into Emory’s institutional missteps, but of American university ideals, where financial manipulation has overshadowed academic opportunity for about 170,000 students over almost two decades.
According to the case, Emory joined the Cartel in 1998 and adopted the Consensus Approach Methodology in 2003 to calculate the ability of an applicant’s family to pay tuition. The University’s settlement raises critical questions about the ethos of not only Emory but all private educational institutions in the U.S.. This settlement demands more than financial retribution; it calls for a recentering of the true purpose of a university — not as a business entity, but as a bastion of learning and accessibility for all.
The consequences of insufficient financial aid extend far beyond the immediate financial strain a student or family faces. Among Emory students, 22% take out federal loans, and the median total debt after graduation is approximately $18,250. This debt not only puts a damper on a student’s education due to the added stress of having to work while studying, but it also casts a shadow over their future financial stability. Additionally, the need to balance paid work with school work can severely affect academic performance and mental health, often forcing in-need students to choose between their jobs and their education.
Emory’s complicity in the 568 Cartel highlights a deeper, systemic issue in higher education. The Cartel’s two-decade-long collusion of the cartel has stifled diversity and accessibility on campuses and perpetuated educational inequality, as students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are disproportionately affected. This process undermines the very essence of higher education as a tool for social mobility and narrows the pool of talent that universities can nurture. Furthermore, in today’s job market, where higher education is increasingly a prerequisite for entry-level positions, such fundamental problems in financial aid policies limit individual potential and hinder the broader workforce in diverse development.
The settlement is a step in the right direction. However, it does not fully address the long-term impact on students who were denied fair financial aid. This agreement should merely be a starting point for deeper reform, not the conclusion of the conversation. This goes beyond the allocation of funds — it is about a commitment to transparency, fairness and empathy in supporting students’ educational journeys. Universities must ensure that financial aid policies are not just equitable on paper but also in practice, accurately supplying aid to diverse student bodies.
The University has already made efforts to reimagine its financial aid policies by replacing need-based loans with grants since the 2022-2023 academic year. Emory’s efforts, while commendable, should take inspiration from peer institutions that have implemented more progressive strategies. For instance, Columbia University does not charge tuition for families earning less than $150,000 a year, significantly reducing the financial burden for a substantial portion of its students. Similarly, Brown University recently announced that it would go need-blind for international students starting with the Class of 2029, a strong step toward increasing inclusivity in higher education. Duke University (N.C.) offers full tuition grants to undergraduates from North Carolina and South Carolina whose families make $150,000 or less a year, recognizing the importance of supporting local students. Such changes by Emory would demonstrate a commitment to fairness and empathy, echoing the attempts at accessible education championed by its peers.
Emory, with its $11 billion endowment and a student body of nearly 16,000, similar to Duke University with an $11.6 billion endowment for 17,000 students, epitomizes the significant financial resources available to top-tier educational institutions. These endowments reflect a potential to significantly ease students’ financial strains. It is imperative for these elite universities to reassess how their endowments are being utilized, especially in light of the financial aid price-fixing lawsuit. A significant portion of these funds should be strategically allocated toward increasing financial aid, adopting a model akin to Duke’s financial support for regional students or even Columbia University’s generous financial aid policy for students across the country. Such practices will help generous aid to to lift some of the burden off lower-income students. This change would not only address immediate financial concerns but also reinforce the commitment of these institutions to making education accessible and equitable.
We are at a critical moment for reflection in higher education. It is an opportunity for universities to evaluate their financial aid policies, prioritizing fairness and empathy over mere monetary calculus. The true success of Emory’s response will be measured not just in dollars, but in the lives positively transformed through more equitable and compassionate financial aid practices.
The above editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheel’s Editorial Board. The Board is composed of Marc Goedemans, Sophia Hoar, Carson Kindred, Justin Leach, Eliana Liporace, Lola McGuire, Saanvi Nayar, Sahana Nellian, Sara Pérez, Maddy Prucha, Jaanaki Radhakrishnan and Ilka Tona.
