House Judiciary panel questions Ivy League pricing, enrollment and administrative spending

The House Judiciary Committee convened a hearing to examine allegations that Ivy League universities coordinate pricing and limit undergraduate enrollment in ways that keep tuition high, witnesses and student witnesses said. Testimony ranged from antitrust-focused legal analysis to warnings that the hearing was a partisan attack and that broader federal funding decisions — including proposed cuts to Pell Grants and research spending — drive affordability problems.

The hearing opened with testimony from Preston Cooper, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who said the eight Ivy League institutions “show many hallmarks of anti‑competitive behavior.” Cooper cited restricted undergraduate admissions, very high sticker prices and large institutional spending as red flags that, he said, merit scrutiny even if they do not by themselves prove an antitrust violation.

“Most Ivy League institutions severely limit undergraduate admissions, turning away thousands of qualified applicants,” Cooper testified. He told the committee that Ivy spending per full‑time equivalent student averages about $126,000 compared with roughly $35,000 at the average private college, and that Ivy institutions employ about one noninstructional staff member for every two students, far above typical private college ratios.

Scott Martin, an antitrust attorney, told lawmakers that coordination among horizontal competitors is the “supreme evil of antitrust” and noted historical enforcement actions and litigation, including a 1989 Department of Justice civil case and a 2022 class action alleging coordination on financial aid formulas. Martin said those prior actions and the industry’s structure — concentrated, with frequent interinstitutional meetings and high barriers to entry — make heightened vigilance appropriate.

Alex Shea, a Brown University student and publisher of the campus paper the Brown Spectator, described administrative bloat at his school and said his student reporting prompted a disciplinary investigation by the university. Shea, who identified himself as a legacy student, said he documented that Brown employs roughly 3,805 full‑time noninstructional staff for about 7,229 undergraduates and said the university’s sticker price — which he put at about $93,000 for total cost of attendance — puts the school out of reach for many applicants.

“Brown says it meets 100% of demonstrated need, but Brown gets to decide what that need is,” Shea told the committee, adding that some students admitted on merit leave because financial aid was insufficient. Several Republican members praised Shea’s reporting and characterized it as evidence that elite institutions have incentives to limit seats and raise prices.

Witnesses offering a counterpoint said the hearing’s focus on the Ivies was misplaced. Julie Margaretta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation, said elite institutions educate a very small share of U.S. undergraduates — she cited under 0.4 percent — and argued that federal and state funding choices, for‑profit college practices and cuts to Pell Grants and research funding are larger drivers of affordability for most students.

Ranking Member Jerry Nadler and Representative Jamie Raskin criticized the hearing as partisan. “This hearing takes a serious issue and uses it as little more than an excuse to launch a decidedly unserious so‑called investigation,” Nadler said, urging enforcement by antitrust agencies where appropriate and warning that broad legislative cuts would harm access.

Committee members and witnesses also discussed several concrete items and figures cited during testimony: alleged historical coordination among elite schools (described in testimony as the “Ivy Overlap Group” and later the so‑called “5‑68 presidents working group”), a 2022 class action and subsequent settlements approximating $320 million for some schools, and the lapse of a statutory antitrust exemption that had been tied to need‑blind admissions. Multiple witnesses described how colleges use detailed financial information, such as the CSS Profile, to set net prices per student.

No formal enforcement action or legislative decision was made during the hearing. Members entered documents into the record and lawmakers from both parties used the hearing to press policy arguments: some urged renewed enforcement and greater scrutiny of pricing practices at elite institutions, while others warned that broader budget cuts and changes to federal programs would worsen access for low‑ and middle‑income students.

The record of the hearing will include written testimony from the panel of witnesses and materials entered by members. Committee members asked witnesses questions and said they would pursue additional documents and discovery already produced in litigation over admissions and financial‑aid practices.