Settlement Seen at MIT

MIT and the Clinton Justice Department are discussing a settlement of an antitrust case that should soon allow MIT and the Ivy League schools to once again share financial aid information about prospective students, several press outlets reported yesterday.

The dialogue comes three months after a federal appeals court overturned a 1992 district court ruling that "overlap" violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, and remanded the case back to the lower court for further examination.

MIT, the only school to fight the Bush Justice Department on the issue, argued that the schools' non-profit status and their benefits to society should exempt them from antitrust rules--a view which the appeals court said must be taken into consideration by the lower court.

MIT spokesperson Kenneth D. Campbell said yesterday that negotiations were currently in progress, but refused to comment further.

An unidentified source told the Wall Street Journal yesterday that MIT will have the advantage in the settlement. "MIT is getting 95 percent of what it wanted," the source said. "It's a total cave-in by the government."

Sources told the Journal that preliminary outlines of the plans are already in place. With the proposed changes, the government would drop its case against MIT. The school would not have to admit guilt or sign a decree consenting to cease sharing information.

A proposed modification of the consent decree signed by the eight Ivy League schools with the Bush Justice Department would allow the schools to agree ongeneral principles for measuring need, and permitthem to share some financial data before awardingfinancial aid, according to the Boston Globe.

Agreeing to give only need-based aid andagreeing on "principles of professional judgment"was allowed by the 1992 Higher EducationReauthorization Act.

Sources told the Globe that the schools wouldstill be barred from agreeing on what familytuition contributions should be and on the exactmakeup of aid packages. And, after aid is awarded,there will be a review by some source to guardagainst schools awarding "excessive" amounts ofaid.

President Neil L. Rudenstine, Vice Presidentfor Government, Community and Public Affairs JaneH. Corlette and General Counsel Margaret H.Marshall were all out of town and unavailable forcomment yesterday.

In September, however, Rudenstine described theappeals court ruling as "an enlightened decision."

But he said that Harvard would not involveitself in the overlap dispute

Agreeing to give only need-based aid andagreeing on "principles of professional judgment"was allowed by the 1992 Higher EducationReauthorization Act.

Sources told the Globe that the schools wouldstill be barred from agreeing on what familytuition contributions should be and on the exactmakeup of aid packages. And, after aid is awarded,there will be a review by some source to guardagainst schools awarding "excessive" amounts ofaid.

President Neil L. Rudenstine, Vice Presidentfor Government, Community and Public Affairs JaneH. Corlette and General Counsel Margaret H.Marshall were all out of town and unavailable forcomment yesterday.

In September, however, Rudenstine described theappeals court ruling as "an enlightened decision."

But he said that Harvard would not involveitself in the overlap dispute