MERIT Act admissions review

Summary#

This bill (the MERIT Act) would change federal higher-education law so accreditors must check whether colleges avoid giving preferential treatment in admissions to applicants because of a relationship with alumni or donors. It also asks the Department of Education to study whether third-party data can show how often and with what effect legacy or donor-based admissions happen. The stated policy goal is to encourage admissions that do not let alumni or donor ties be the deciding factor.

• Main change: Accreditation standards must assess whether an institution’s admissions refrain from preferential treatment based on an applicant’s relationship to alumni or donors.
• Defines preferential treatment as making an admissions decision or giving tangible education benefits where the applicant’s relationship to an alumni or donor is the determinative factor.
• Allows “demonstrated interest” to be used if criteria are public, applicants can explain their interest, and opportunities to show interest are equally accessible.
• Exempts faith-based colleges from limits that would conflict with their faith-based admissions choices.
• Requires reports to Congress on compliance (first report due within 180 days after a related negotiated rulemaking finishes, then every two years).
• Directs a feasibility study (within 2 years) on using the National Student Clearinghouse to collect institution-level data on legacy/donor admissions while protecting privacy.

What it means for you#

• Students and applicants

  • If you apply to college, the bill could mean colleges are reviewed on whether they give decisive preference to legacy or donor-linked applicants.
  • The bill does not ban consideration of demonstrated interest if the school follows the notice and equal-access rules.
  • Faith-based applicants may still be admitted under faith-based criteria.

• Applicants with alumni or donor ties (legacy or donor-linked applicants)

  • Colleges may face more review about whether those ties were the deciding factor in admissions.
  • This could reduce instances where such ties are the primary reason for admission, depending on how accreditors assess compliance.

• Colleges and universities

  • Accreditors will be asked to evaluate each institution’s admissions practices on this issue.
  • Institutions may need to document policies and practices about legacy and donor-related admissions and possibly change admissions processes to avoid findings of preferential treatment.
  • Schools that use demonstrated interest must publish criteria and ensure equal access to ways of showing interest.

• Accreditors and the Department of Education

  • Accreditors must add assessment of legacy/donor preference to their evaluation standards.
  • The Department must run a negotiated rulemaking, issue reports to Congress on compliance, and carry out a feasibility study with the National Student Clearinghouse.

• Data and privacy

  • The bill directs a study on collecting data about legacy/donor admissions and emphasizes protecting donor identities and personally identifiable information.
  • The bill explicitly says it does not authorize creating a nationwide database of personally identifiable information.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on dollar estimates or a fiscal note is included in the bill text.

• The bill requires negotiated rulemaking, regular reporting to Congress, compliance monitoring, and a feasibility study. These activities would likely raise administrative costs for the Department of Education.
• Colleges and accreditors may face compliance and reporting costs if new documentation, tracking, or policy changes are required.
• If a data collection system is developed later, there could be costs for data reporting, privacy protections, and third‑party work with the National Student Clearinghouse. Exact amounts are not specified.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to reduce admissions decisions that are based primarily on alumni or donor relationships rather than an applicant’s merits.
• Supporters may argue this would promote fairness and transparency in college admissions by having accreditors check for such practices.
• Requiring public criteria for demonstrated interest aims to let applicants know how they can show interest without favoring those with more resources or alumni connections.
• The feasibility study could provide better, institution-level data to understand how common legacy and donor-based admissions are and their effects, while protecting privacy.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill does not fully explain how accreditors should measure or prove that an alumni or donor relationship was the “determinative factor.” That could make enforcement hard.
• The bill asks for new data reporting while also stressing privacy. It is unclear how to balance accurate data about legacy/donor admissions with protecting donor identities and personal data.
• The bill may increase administrative and compliance burdens for colleges and accreditors without clear guidance or funding.
• It is unclear whether the bill would reduce alumni donations or change long‑standing institutional practices; the bill does not analyze any such consequences.
• The scope and strength of possible sanctions or corrective steps if a college is found noncompliant are not described in the bill text.