MERIT Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
The MERIT Act aims to reduce legacy and donor-based admissions preferences by linking accreditation to merit-based practices and exploring data collection to increase transparency in higher education admissions.
What it actually does
The MERIT Act amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require accrediting agencies to assess whether institutions of higher education refrain from preferential treatment in admissions based on an applicant's relationship to alumni or donors. It defines 'preferential treatment' as when such a relationship is the 'determinative factor' in an admissions decision. The bill also clarifies that considering 'demonstrated interest' under specific equitable conditions and making faith-based admissions decisions by religious institutions are not prohibited. Additionally, it mandates a feasibility study on collecting institution-level data regarding the impact of alumni and donor affiliations on admissions decisions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill promotes fairness and equity in higher education admissions by ensuring that merit and individual qualifications, rather than familial or financial connections, are the primary determinants for entry. They believe it will broaden access for qualified students from diverse backgrounds, enhance public trust in the integrity of the admissions process, and align admissions practices with the goal of social mobility.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such a federal mandate infringes on institutional autonomy, particularly for private institutions that rely on alumni engagement and philanthropic support, which they contend are fostered by legacy preferences. They may also argue that legacy admissions are a legitimate way to cultivate community, ensure long-term institutional stability, and provide resources that benefit all students, including those receiving financial aid.
The bill text is concise, allowing for a quick read, but its implications for higher education policy and institutional practices warrant deeper consideration of its provisions and potential impacts.
Section 2(a)(1)
Amending Accreditation Standards for Preferential Treatment
This provision requires accrediting agencies, when evaluating institutions of higher education, to assess whether those institutions have adopted admissions practices that avoid giving preferential treatment to applicants based on their relationship to alumni or donors. This means that an institution's accreditation status, and thus its eligibility for federal student aid, could be impacted if it continues to use such preferences.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this directly addresses a perceived unfairness in college admissions, promoting a merit-based system and leveling the playing field for all applicants, regardless of their family's past connections or financial contributions to an institution.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this is an overreach into institutional autonomy, particularly for private institutions that rely on alumni engagement and donations, which can be fostered through legacy admissions. They may contend it could reduce philanthropic giving.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the goal of equitable access and merit-based admissions against institutional autonomy and the potential impact on fundraising and alumni relations.
Section 2(a)(2)
Defining 'Preferential Treatment'
This provision defines 'preferential treatment' for the purpose of the new accreditation standard. It specifies that preferential treatment means making an admissions decision or awarding tangible educational benefits where an applicant's relationship with an alumni of, or donor to, the institution serves as the 'determinative factor.' This clarifies that mere consideration of such a relationship is not prohibited, but rather when it is the deciding element.
Section 2(b)(2)
Allowing Consideration of Demonstrated Interest
This rule clarifies that institutions can still consider an applicant's 'demonstrated interest' as a factor in admissions decisions. However, this is permitted only if the criteria for assessing demonstrated interest are clearly defined and publicly available, applicants have the opportunity to explain their interest (which can be informed by lived experiences, values, attributes, and faith), and the opportunities to demonstrate interest are equally accessible to all applicants, regardless of their financial resources, alumni affiliation, or donor affiliation.
Section 2(b)(3)
Protections for Faith-Based Institutions
This provision clarifies that the new accreditation standards regarding preferential treatment do not inhibit the right of a religious institution to make admissions decisions consistent with its faith-based values. This ensures that religious institutions can continue to prioritize applicants who align with their religious mission without violating the new federal requirements.
Section 2(c)
Biennial Report on Compliance Efforts
This section requires the Secretary of Education to submit a report to Congress within 180 days after the completion of the negotiated rulemaking process for the bill's amendments, and biennially thereafter. The report must detail efforts taken to ensure compliance with the new requirements, including technical assistance provided, regulatory guidance issued, and compliance monitoring conducted. All reports must be made publicly available.
Section 3(a)
Feasibility Study on Admissions Data Collection
This section mandates the Secretary of Education to conduct a feasibility study within two years of enactment. The study will explore working with the National Student Clearinghouse to establish a third-party method for collecting and analyzing institution-level data on the impact of admissions decisions based on alumni or donor relationships. It requires consideration of factors such as data accuracy, institutional policies, integration with existing data systems (like IPEDS), confidentiality (especially for donors), separation of familial ties from direct donor affiliations, and distinctions in admissions criteria.
This rule explicitly states that nothing in the section authorizing the feasibility study shall be construed to authorize the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this Act or an amendment made by this Act.
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include privacy safeguards, often to preempt concerns about federal overreach in data collection and to reassure stakeholders about data security.
Case for: This provision ensures individual privacy is protected and prevents the creation of a centralized federal database of student information, addressing potential civil liberties and data security concerns.
Case against: No direct case against, as it is a protective measure. However, some might argue it could limit the depth of analysis if any disaggregated data is deemed personally identifiable, potentially hindering comprehensive research.
Estimated impact: Prevents the development of a specific type of data system, impacting privacy protections for potentially millions of students and applicants.