by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

I have spoken and written several times regarding the issue of international recruiters or agents. Such agents are used by colleges to find students overseas, paying the agent a per-head fee once the student enrolls. The practice has long been criticized on several fronts. Such agents typically conceal their business relationship from students and families. They pose as consultants, promising students to help them find a good college match and assist with applications. They never tell the family the truth: that they only refer students to one of the handful of colleges that pay them the bounty they demand. Colleges have begun to discover the downside as well: such students arrive on campus often without the skills necessary to succeed. Because the agent is only paid once a student enrolls, there is too much gamesmanship in the process that ensures students are registered, but all too often flunk out.

In a recent blog I noted that paying agents on a per-head basis is so clearly improper that it is actually illegal for colleges to have such a business relationship domestically. The Higher Education Act contains a provision that bars colleges from providing incentive compensation. While the law has not yet kept up internationally, I suspect it is just a matter of time before such actions are illegal everywhere. Even if not illegal, such methods of filling dorm beds have proven to be illusory as students drop out and return home.

Last week, in a historic decision, the University of Phoenix agreed to settle a case in which admission representatives claimed they were paid based on how many students they enrolled, a violation of the Higher Education Act. The settlement of more than $78 million dollars against the university demonstrates yet again that such behavior is simply wrong. While this was a domestic case, it is a reminder that scores of colleges engage in this same practice internationally. IECA believes strongly that colleges will be better served, and root themselves more firmly on ethical ground, by ending the practice of supporting fee-for-student agents.

Luckily, there are a growing number of independent educational consultants throughout the United States and the world. Affiliating with Independent Educational Consultants Association ensures families—and colleges—that these are educated, ethical professionals who do not accept any payment from colleges or schools, and who pledge to always put the students’ interests first.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

Nearly 30 years ago IECA set the standard for the profession of educational consulting by establishing the first Principles of Good Practice. Major revisions several years ago made these ethics guidelines stricter and more demanding, setting limits on the value of gifts, articulating the limits on commercial activities, and places a firm prohibition against activities that heighten student or family anxieties. IECA became one of the first associations in the country that regularly reviewed the marketing materials of applicants to ensure these emphasize a “good fit” over “getting in.”

Now the Independent Educational Consultants Association has again raised the bar substantially by establishing new STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE for the practice of educational consulting. These new competencies (covering 14 pages of information) ensure that those in the field keep up with the ever-changing body of knowledge and practice in a professional and empathic way. The new document covers the major consulting areas of college advising, school advising, advising of students with learning disabilities, and advising students with special needs (emotional and behavioral problems). Within each advising specialty, competencies are articulated in the areas of assessments, working with the family, working with educational institutions, professional ethics, professional office management, and professional development.

Among the competencies:

• Consultants seeks to empower the student to take charge of the application process.

• Educate families and students about college ranking systems and media coverage in order to bring balance to decision-making and put this information in context.

• Recommend only schools that the consultant has visited except in highly unusual situations; make regular visits to campuses (spending up to 20% of one’s professional time doing so).

• Advise on the best alternatives for the child, regardless of parental desire or pressure. Consultants should seek to help parents understand why actions are recommended.

• Use intake procedures that insure the consultant develops an in-depth understanding of the unique characteristics of each student, i.e. unique abilities, academic learning style, personal characteristics, values, attitudes, feelings, interests, personal strengths and weaknesses, work ethic, aspirations, short-term and long-term goals.

• Prepare students and families for issues surrounding the transition from high school to college, i.e. self-advocacy skills.

• Understand the limitations of and appropriate uses of common assessment instruments.

• Be aware of accreditation, licensure and approval status of programs they recommend.

• Maintain knowledge of programs’ safety records, number of students, maintenance, administrative policies, education, therapy and emotional growth components, food service and quality, population description, confidentiality, and more.

• Respect the families’ and parents’ experience, history, values, religion, goals, and financial parameters in order to factor these in to the application and decision-making process.

The complete document, copyrighted by IECA, is available on the Association’s Web site: www.IECAonline.com.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

Sometime this week the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is expected to formally launch an investigation into gender bias in the nation’s colleges. The charge is that college admission policies favor male applicants. Some colleges will respond to this charge with a hardy “yes, of course we do.”

The year I enrolled in college, males accounted for 57% of the undergraduate population. Today those numbers have reversed with women accounting for nearly 59%, as males are more likely to explore work, enlist in the military, or find themselves incarcerated. To many colleges, there is a benefit to a student body that is more evenly split between the sexes and some fear the results of an imbalance should female populations top the 2/3 mark…a figure not wholly unrealistic in smaller liberal arts colleges. College administrators, and educational consultants, fear that such a campus would become less and less appealing not only to some males, but many female candidates as well.

While the federal investigation may focus on a wider cross-section of schools, anti-discrimination laws apply only to public universities, as private schools have enjoyed the right to discriminate based on gender—a law that has allowed some institutions to remain single-sex. The investigators are likely to explore the grade point averages, test scores, and other details between admitted and rejected males and females.

Most colleges, public and private, will argue that they view all candidates as a whole: not only grades and scores, but personal and community-based experiences also. So, too, I suspect, they will note that colleges believe their students and their institutions are best served with a diverse student body. That said, when evaluating candidates for admission, schools likely look at a number of factors beyond scores and grades to ensure such diversity: race, religion, the state where the candidate was raised and educated, areas of interest and passion—and gender.

The Supreme Court, looking at the role of race in admissions, determined that colleges had the right to consider race among other factors, as colleges sought a diverse student body. In the case of the white student who brought the case claiming discrimination, the courts saw that providing some benefit to underrepresented minorities was an acceptable practice. Such actions, said the court, were designed in part to create a dynamic and diverse student body which benefited all students.

The question now is whether male undergraduates have become, in essence, an underrepresented minority deserving of some benefit in college admission. For me the more critical question is whether colleges retain the right to seek as diverse a student population as it wants, and does this extend to the right to favor some characteristics over others in order to achieve that aim. It is not, of course, as simple as it seems. For we should have no doubt that some small number of colleges, given permission to discriminate among applicants based on social characteristics, would do so for less noble purposes than a diverse student body.

For the time being I support colleges—and this from the father of two girls—because I do ascribe to the belief that all students benefit when the entering freshman class has students both urban and rural, American and foreign, Christian and not, female and male.

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

A new national study by Education Trust reports the surprising figure that only 57% of college freshmen (in 1999, the class studied) nationwide has achieved their undergraduate degree within six years. That figure includes students who transferred and graduated elsewhere. Worse still were the numbers for low-income and underrepresented minorities whose six-year graduation rate was just 45%. If ever there was a number that begs for innovation on campus—and for better advising upfront—this is it.

The report also showed that community colleges may not be the answer. There, fewer than 24% of low-income and minority students completed their associates degree within four years.

Clearly we are failing these students. Whether it is not providing the tools they need academically, not enveloping them in the school community, or lack of support systems in place once they arrive, such figures speak clearly and alarmingly of a broken system.

In the field of educational consulting we know one thing: a student is more likely to succeed when there is a great match made between the students needs, interests, and abilities, and the institutions best suited to help them thrive. That’s what great counseling is all about and what the Independent Educational Consultants Association stands for.

Many have believed that the failure to graduate was directly related to the student’s ability to afford tuition. That is,  a low-income or minority student has a more difficult time sustaining the cost of a college education over four, five or six years. However the study looked at those receiving Pell grants. Looking at two-year institutions, even those with grants completed their program at a rate of 32%—the same rate as other students.

Many have heard me say that we must end this focus on where “students get in,” which dominates the media and shift our focus to “where students thrive, succeed, and graduate.”

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend an “Executive Forum” of two dozen association CEOs.  While it was a diverse collection based on both size and professional representation, education groups dominated.Being invited to participate provided me with a wonderful opportunity to speak with leaders of groups with whom we share an interest in education and adolescents. Among others, I had the opportunity to discuss possible collaboration with the executive director of the National Association for Gifted Children and began a dialogue with the CEO of the National Association of School Psychologists, among others.  A hat tip to Marriott for sponsoring the gathering.

Among other things I learned during the day, I was most excited by how far in front of other groups we have been in embracing social media. This blog, our Facebook page, our formal training during conferences and our 1:1 tutorials put us well ahead of other groups who are just now moving into this area or who are ensnared in Board policy debates. Diane Geller (president of the Independent Educational Consultants Association) recently noted that IECA’s successes have come in part because of our nimbleness and agility.

Throughout the day we explored topics ranging from legal changes, cost-saving moves and revenue generation. However, it was the presentation on social media that seemed to engage the attendees the most.

I learned that in the association world, at least 94% of members who join in social media, do so as “lurkers.”  They may read or casually observe, but they do so without actively participating. Here too, IECA has broken the mold as hundreds of our members have created their own Facebook professional pages, written for our blog, or posted comments. Nationally, fewer than 5% of organization members get so involved. My goal is to increase that by 5-10 times the participation rate…particularly as we look for new opportunities for our affinity groups, committees, an IECA wiki and more.

As I mentioned at the membership breakfast in Charlotte last month, we do not expect everyone in IECA to follow and participate in every avenue we’ve created. Rather, our goal is to create opportunities so that every member is able to find the one or two communication tools that works best for their needs and interests.

Of course as CEOs, we also explored the new legal world that social media has created and we will need to look at regulations to ensure we meet federal laws, including anti-trust legislation.

I look forward to continued discussions with the other educational groups with whom I spent the day. Opportunities for webinars, educational sharing, and more are to be explored in the coming weeks. I hope that one benefit of IECA membership is our ability to interact with the educational organizations headquartered here in the DC area and around the country.