Cengage and McGraw-Hill did not confirm whether this is the case.
Given that the merger was announced in May and does not appear to have progressed, it seems likely that the DOJ requested additional information from the companies about the proposed merger, said Vaheesan. Representatives of McGraw-Hill Education and Cengage said in an emailed statement that they remain confident the merger will benefit their customers and are working closely with the Department of Justice to complete the merger-review process. higher education course material market as a duopoly - with potentially dire consequences in terms of price, access and control of student data." "If approved by federal regulators, the merger would reshape the U.S. "Over the past two months, we've been working with industry and antitrust experts to build a complaint against the merger, which we intend to file with the DOJ's antitrust division," wrote Allen.
#Mcgraw hill connect access code crack update#
Nicole Allen, director of open education for SPARC published a Q&A on the merger on Monday with "answers to common questions and an update on what we're doing to stop it." Open access advocacy group SPARC has also opposed the merger. "This merger would only accelerate those trends.” “We have a market that is already very concentrated, and that concentration has led to price increases above inflation," he said. Vaheesan said the merger could also hurt academic authors and editors, because the market would lose a major employer. “We’re optimistic that we will hear back from the DOJ and get the opportunity to talk more about what this means for students,” said Vitez. PIRG’s higher education campaign, said they hoped the letter would encourage the Department of Justice to consider the impact of the merger on students. Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at the Open Markets Institute, and Kaitlyn Vitez, director of U.S. The letter argued that the merger would substantially lessen competition between companies, making it “unlawful under long-standing antitrust law.” The Open Markets Institute suggested in the letter that together Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education would control at least 41 percent of the higher education textbook market - matching Pearson. PIRG, the Economic Policy Institute and several other consumer advocacy groups, as well as a handful of professors. It was drafted by the Open Markets Institute and signed by U.S. “By reducing the need to compete, and then using access codes, subscription services and ‘inclusive access’ to strong-arm students into buying materials, Cengage and McGraw-Hill will be able to continue their decades-long pattern of raising prices.… From our perspective as the primary consumers of textbooks, this merger will allow skyrocketing prices to continue unchecked.”Ī second letter to the Department of Justice opposing the merger on a legal and economic basis was made public on Monday. “We have many classmates that have skipped buying the access code and are doomed to fail the class,” the letter says. The students argue that if they can’t resell their course materials, it will hurt those who already struggle to afford texts. Over time, it is possible the new publisher, which will be called McGraw Hill, may follow in Pearson’s footsteps by phasing out the sale of print textbooks and shifting to a “ digital first” strategy. Publishers say these platforms provide a better learning experience for students, but they also have the added bonus of allowing publishers to take back market share previously lost through the sale of secondhand books. When the Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education merger was announced in May, leaders of the companies said the new publisher would focus on developing digitally enhanced learning platforms. “Because there are so few publishers, and because faculty choose books on behalf of their students, the normal rules of supply and demand have broken down,” the letter says.Ī key concern raised by the students is that the new publisher would quickly move to eliminate the used book market. They also argued that the merger would “consolidate more power” with a small handful of publishers, reducing competition and ultimately raising prices for students. Public Interest Research Group and signed by student government organizations, the groups noted that the merger would create a publisher so big that its only real rival would be Pearson. In a letter to the department drafted by the U.S. The move is a reflection of the significant concern among consumer and student groups about the merger. Department of Justice Monday to block the proposed merger of publishers Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education. Consumer advocacy groups, along with more than 40 student government organizations, separately called on the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
