A recent court filing in a high-profile lawsuit shows how much of a leg up the children of donors may have in the college admissions procedure. 

Emails and internal records from some of the country’s most selective universities paint a picture of a structure fraught with inequities and looser standards for applicants with wealthy parents. 

The evidence submitted Monday marks a recent phase in a legal battle over allegations that, for years, 17 of the country’s top schools violated antitrust laws by conspiring to reduce budgetary aid for less affluent students. A throng of students first sued the schools in 2022. Their lawyers are now arguing that they and their peers were overcharged more than $685 million in an alleged conspiracy. Lawyers for the schools have called those calculations “junk science.”

After a protracted court fight, 10 of the schools, including Yale University and Brown University, settled with the students for $284 million in July. Other colleges named in the lawsuit have continued to fight the accusations in court. All 17 of the institutions sued continue to deny any wrongdoing.  

The suit has raised recent questions about fairness in college admissions, evoking comparisons to the Operation Varsity Blues scandal, in which a slew of celebrities and business tycoons were embroiled in a massive fraud scheme to bribe their way into prestigious colleges. Since the settlements last summer, similar worth-fixing lawsuits have emerged against some of the same top schools, which often have the most charitable budgetary aid packages in the country. 

College-bound students and their parents have long criticized the admissions procedure at selective private universities, saying it is opaque and unfair. While many of those schools have acknowledged they’ve given preferential treatment to the children of some donors to advantage the whole learner body, the evidence filed in court Monday provides a distinctive glimpse into what the controversial preferences look like in habit. 

Here are five accusations that stand out: 

Allegation #1: Georgetown had a ‘President’s List’ 

School records submitted in court indicate that Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., followed a “special profit admissions policy” that offered “favored treatment in admission” to students from families who could assist enhance its donation collection. 

The university adhered to the policy, in part, by creating a “President’s List” of roughly 80 wealthy applicants each year, the plaintiffs’ lawyers declare. Students on that list were almost always admitted, the filing says, and the words “Please Admit” were often added to “President’s List” applications. 

A university spokesperson declined to comment Tuesday, although lawyers for the school have strongly disputed allegations in the lawsuit.

Allegation #2: Notre Dame administrator acknowledged donor preferences

In an email written in 2012, the University of Notre Dame’s associate vice president for undergraduate enrollment admitted that “high gifting” or “potential gifting” of students’ families influenced some admissions decisions at the period. 

In particular, the official at the Indiana college expressed frustration that more kids with ties to donors were admitted in 2012 than the year prior, even though those students had worse academic track records. 

“Sure aspiration the wealthy next year raise a few more intelligent kids!” the official wrote. 

In a statement Tuesday, the university said there is no merit to the plaintiffs’ claims. Every learner admitted to Notre Dame is fully qualified and ready to achieve, the school said. 

Allegation #3: Former Penn admissions dean airs frustrations

Monday’s court filing also says the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school in Philadelphia, gave the children of donors preferential treatment. 

A former admissions dean who worked at the school from 1999 to 2008 testified in a deposition that some applicants were designated as serving a “bona fide special profit,” or BSI. Students marked with “BSI tags” had parents who were “large donors,” she said, or for whom members of the board of trustees had advocated.  

“To get a BSI tag, you were untouchable,” she said. “You would have gotten in almost 100% of the period.” 

In a statement Tuesday, Penn spokesperson David Gringer said the evidence in the case makes it obvious that Penn doesn’t favor students whose families have made or pledged donations, “whatever the amount.” 

“In truth, the university takes great precaution to ensure that no such preference is given,” Gringer said. “As a outcome, only qualified candidates are admitted.”

Allegation #4: Cornell conducted ‘connection reviews’ of applicants

According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Cornell University, an Ivy League school in recent York, has a record of tracking applicants “backed by substantial institutional donors.” 

Monday’s filing says the admissions throng often conducted “connection reviews” for those students, who were kept on “VIP watch lists” by the school’s donation collection throng.

A Cornell spokesperson declined to comment Tuesday. 

Allegation #5: MIT board chair pressured admissions dean

The filing additionally accuses the former chair of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s board of successfully pressuring the dean of admissions for the school to admit the children of one of his previous colleagues.

MIT spokesperson Kimberly Allen said in a statement that the allegations in the lawsuit are baseless and that the school has no history of affluence favoritism in its admissions procedure.

Allen noted that there had been years of proceedings during which “millions of documents were produced that provide an overwhelming record of independence in our admissions procedure.”

Despite the pile of evidence, she said, “the plaintiffs could cite just a single instance in which the recommendation of a board member helped sway the decisions for two undergraduate applicants.”

“Contrary to what the plaintiffs claim, the potential for philanthropic gifts had no bearing on these isolated cases, and, in truth, our records reflect that the children of wealthy individuals routinely receive disappointing information from MIT,” she said.

Allen said the school planned to submit a response to Monday’s filing sometime next month.

Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at [email protected]. pursue him on X at @ZachSchermele.