Republican lawmakers are widening their focus on how colleges set tuition, shifting attention to the consultants and technology firms that advise universities on pricing and aid strategies. Leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have requested detailed information from several companies whose products are widely used in higher education.
The inquiry targets consulting giants EAB and Ruffalo Noel Levitz, both of which market enrollment management systems that draw on extensive student data. Lawmakers also directed questions to the College Board, Oracle, and Ellucian, companies that provide financial aid tools or higher-education software platforms. The committees want descriptions of each product, the types of data being processed, and lists of client institutions.
The central issue is whether reliance on shared software could lead to uniform pricing patterns across colleges. If schools are using the same models, critics warn, they may inadvertently be coordinating aid offers in ways that reduce competition. Legislators noted that this could raise antitrust concerns even in the absence of direct conversations among institutions.
Consultants promote their services as a way for schools to match offers with student behavior. EAB, for example, has described its approach as similar to financial market strategies, analyzing hundreds of variables to predict enrollment decisions. Ruffalo Noel Levitz advertises software that taps into data from more than a thousand institutions, with applications ranging from aid allocation to alumni fundraising.
The rapid expansion of these services has drawn scrutiny from policymakers who see parallels to past antitrust cases. In 2019, the Department of Justice forced changes to college admission counseling rules that once restricted schools from competing for students late in the application cycle. Earlier this year, some of the same lawmakers questioned Ivy League universities about whether their admissions and aid practices had limited price competition.
Advocates for reform argue that the consultant industry has too much influence over affordability. Stephen Burd, an analyst with the think tank New America, has described enrollment management as an overlooked factor in the student debt crisis. By helping schools maximize revenue, he argues, consultants often shape outcomes that disadvantage lower-income families.
Others believe the criticism is overstated. Georgia Nugent, a former liberal arts college president, has explained that while her institutions did use external models, administrators did not blindly follow them. According to Nugent, colleges still weigh institutional priorities and values when deciding how to package aid.
Still, lawmakers are pressing for transparency. They have asked whether companies update pricing models in real time during admissions season and whether pooled student data gives competitors insight into one another’s strategies. Answers to those questions, antitrust lawyers say, could determine whether the practice amounts to “algorithmic collusion.”
So far, the companies involved have not issued detailed public responses. EAB declined comment, while Ruffalo Noel Levitz did not reply to inquiries. The College Board, Oracle, and Ellucian have also remained silent.
The committees have not said what remedies might follow, but the letters set the stage for further hearings or potential regulatory action. With tuition rising faster than inflation and student loan debt topping $1.7 trillion, the role of behind-the-scenes technology vendors is now firmly in the spotlight.
This image is the property of The New Dispatch LLC and is not licenseable for external use without explicit written permission.
