IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v17y2021i4p903-946..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equality of Opportunity and Antitrust: The Curious Case of College Rankings

Author

Listed:
  • Theodosia Stavroulaki

Abstract

Rankings increasingly dominate our world. We use them to choose just about everything—from which pizza or ice cream to buy, to which doctors to trust with our health, to which universities to trust with our intellectual growth and flourishing. But should we trust them? Taking popular academic rankings as an example, such as the U.S. News rankings, this article contends not necessarily, for several reasons. First, because as this article argues, the U.S. News rankings may mislead rather than inform consumers. Second, by fueling a prestige battle between universities, the U.S. News rankings incentivize universities to harm cultural and economic diversity—important facets of educational quality. These conclusions, critical in their own right, raise additional important but underexplored questions for antitrust law. Should universities be allowed to boycott the U.S. News rankings so that they can free themselves of the prestige battle in which they participate? Can an “antirankings boycott” be justified by antitrust law on the basis that it may allow universities to promote diversity and increase access to the underserved? Although these questions are not easy to address, they are at the heart of this article.

Suggested Citation

  • Theodosia Stavroulaki, 2021. "Equality of Opportunity and Antitrust: The Curious Case of College Rankings," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 903-946.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:17:y:2021:i:4:p:903-946.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhab008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:17:y:2021:i:4:p:903-946.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.