by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consulting Association

We are still in the early stages of conference registration for IECA’s Fall National Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. However, we have already passed 600 attendees and are looking forward to a wonderful gathering. Here are six new, improved, or unique aspects to the conference that you may have missed in our registration packet:

(1) Cincinnati is surprisingly easy to fly in to and worth visiting. The Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati (CVG) airport is a hub for Delta airlines, but this new, modern airport offers 200 incoming flights a day with direct service to more than 80 cities. Cincinnati was a major stop of the Underground Railroad for slavesseeking freedom in the north. The Underground Railroad Freedom Center is my favorite place in the city. Also don’t miss the Museum Center (our conference logo) at Union Station where four museums, plus several restaurants, are housed under one roof.

(2) There will NOT be an opening keynote speech. Instead we have invited several educational leaders and innovators (all currently university presidents) to have a round-table discussion about the future of American education on Wednesday afternoon. We will get to “listen in” to their conversation and raise some questions and discussion points. This will be a unique opportunity to hear educational opinion leaders from Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky.

(3) We have made nine changes to the schedule impacting therapeutic schools & programs and educational consultants serving those resources. Among other things, a special ‘professional exchange’ time at the end of the School Fair on Thursday, Program Showcases on Saturday, an overlap in the schedule when all conference attendees are together, and a wonderful Master Class on Saturday featuring Dr. Paul Keck, president-CEO of the Lindner Center speaking about bipolar disorder.

(4) There are five pre-conference opportunities. We are offering two 3-1/2 hour pre-conference workshops: One on social networking for consultants and the other exploring autism spectrum disorders. In addition, our one-on-one speed meetings will feature traditional schools. All these are scheduled for Wednesday morning. In addition, IECA is offering tours of Ohio and Kentucky colleges Monday through Wednesday, and a number of schools and programs are extending offers for visits throughout the Great Lakes region.

(5) Conference Central has emerged as a major meeting, learning, exploring place during conferences. For those who have not attended a conference in over a year, wait until you experienceconference central: refreshments, cyber-lounge, bookstore, exhibit booths, member services, raffles, and give-aways, just to name a few of the attractions. We have added comfortable seating to make sure the Conference Central area is a place to relax, network, and much more.

(6) Special events from beginning to end. Wednesday’s dinner; Friday’s reception with plenty to eatand drink; Murray Banks, the amazing Thursday lunch speaker; a Friday general session featuring the Kinship Center, the nation’s leading voice on adoption issues are among all that we have scheduled. We’ll also be featuring the amazing movie “In 500 Words or Less” on Thursday night with the film’s creators in attendance, leading a discussion after the film. We’re even be including pizza and drinks for this special movie night!

We hope to see you in Cincinnati. Registration is open and hotel rooms are still available in the IECA block. Plan your travel to take full advantage of all we have going on. Join us as we “Come Together in the Heartland.”

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

Recently I came across a comment on a blog where someone expressed an implied criticism of IECA. The criticism was that the Independent Educational Consultants Association does not focus its energies exclusively in school selection, application, and admission. The criticism actually kept me up all night—quite a feat for those who know me—yet I tossed and turned. But not for the reasons you may think. I’m certainly not thin-skinned, and so I can take any criticism. In this case I was restless because I was confounded. How could someone have written those words believing them to be critical, when to me they express the very difference that makes IECA and its members so uniquely qualified? Critical? No—to me it was the ultimate praise.

How can one even imagine preparing to send students away for school, but not understand issues like adolescent depression or anxiety? Should we apologize for bringing in the top experts in the country to present about the latest developments in research on brain theory, gender differences, attachment, and the impact of adoption? We know full well how such things impact the ability to succeed both in class and with peers. Should we not support our members who wish to do career exploration or employ the dynamic information gained in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?

Some of the criticism, I suspect, was related to some of the topics at IECA conferences. Does the person offering the critique believe that those assisting in college or school admission should confine their discussion to majors, Greek life, financial aid and ‘where you can get in?’ All that should be noted, but every single person working with adolescents, if they wish to be taken as a true professional, should gain some understanding of some growing trends of concern: Internet and gaming addictions (the numbers of kids who land in a dorm room and play World of Warcraft or other games 24 hours a day, skipping class, is scary!), abuse of prescription drugs (a growing campus trend), campus bullying (using social media), eating and body-perception disorders, and so much more.

It seems that some think college admission can be accomplished using a chart: standardized test scores in column A, GPA in column B, activities in column C, and voila…”Here’s your list of schools, Sally!” Let’s remember that adolescents are not a simple commodity where we plug in the proper numbers and out pops the result. IECA’s strength comes from our realization—make that commitment—to seeing every child as an individual, with abilities and weaknesses, emotional strengths and scars, unique talents, and needs. Yes, this is indeed what makes IECA unique, and more importantly, what makes our members uniquely qualified to really serve the best interests, the true needs of every child.

That anyone can think otherwise, will keep me up at nights.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

Here he defends the soon-to-be-released U.S. News rankings, anticipating that “many in the Education Establishment will [trash] them… They will be labeled as non-scientific, elitist, poorly constructed, etc. etc.” even though they are “meeting a human need.”

I can’t agree with much in Mr. Vedder’s piece, except that the rankings are popular and that they sell. But I’m happy to be among those who will trash them—not for Mr. Vedder’s reasons, but rather because they are pernicious.

He cites Consumer Reports as a model. But colleges do not lend themselves to consumer-reports-style rankings, where measurements of quality are known in advance and can be quantified: for example, how clean a washer will get your clothes and how often on average it will need repair.

Much of what makes colleges effective cannot be measured in numbers. Every college is a unique amalgam with its own personality and community that places its stamp on education—on faculty who teach there and on students who go there. And more than anything, it is these subtleties that shape students’ attitudes, learning, and experiences.

These are considerations that rankings can’t even attempt to deal with, let alone compare from college to college. Moreover, the non-quantifiable part, the “reputational survey,” is a not only a joke, but there is also clear evidence that contributors try to manipulate it.

Let’s take Mr. Vedder’s example: “If you are paying $50,000 a year to send your kid to either Harvard or George Washington U, other things equal, the quality of education is likely to be superior at Harvard.”

He offers no basis for this statement other than the implication that because Harvard is ranked higher, Harvard is inherently superior. Is teaching better? Rankings won’t tell you that, because good teaching depends on a blend of factors, many of which are subtle and can’t be quantified. Just ask colleges; they’ve struggled forever to measure teaching effectiveness as part of tenure and promotion.

Yes, rankings sell. And since colleges mostly don’t change rapidly, to have a rankings farrago annually, U.S. News has to tweak the formula annually so that rankings will remain in the forefront and they can present a picture of colleges battling it out to move up the ladder.

But rankings are not merely imperfect because formulas are manipulated or because they are unscientific or whatever. They are pernicious because, although they may be attractive, they are not a good tool to help answer questions that at bottom matter most to a student: which schools will be the best match in terms of my needs and plans.

None of their fatal shortcomings would matter much if ranking if colleges were a harmless pastime. But they are not harmless. They have transformed how trustees and the public judge a college’s effectiveness. They encourage students to make prestige the centerpiece of their college search instead of figuring out what they truly want for themselves. And they are the foundation of the marketing engine driving multi-billion dollar enterprises that have transformed applying to highly-ranked schools from a ‘best match’ process into a trophy hunt.

Some have unfairly lumped independent educational consultants with those enterprises. It’s true that educational consultants are flourishing in this new climate, but that’s because we are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Our job is to help families sort through the hype and reduce anxiety by focusing on basics: helping students figure out what they want in a college, and then figure out who has it. And then help students master the skills of showing their best selves to colleges so that good matches can take place.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consultants Association

It is this week that U.S. News and World Report releases its best-selling issue of the year: its annual ranking of colleges and universities. Based on criteria that no one thinks is ideal (and few fully comprehend), the result is a week where colleges condemn (when their rankings decline) and others reluctantly cheer (when their rankings rise) and all express bewilderment. Worst of all, students add colleges to their ‘wish lists’ not understanding that much of the criteria that put a school on the list has no consequence to their particular needs, interests, or desires.

This year the non-profit group, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, has released an alternate ranking. Theirs is based on whether colleges provide a well-rounded learning experience based on requiring survey classes in history, literature, writing, science, and more. This group believes that colleges should require such basic general knowledge classes. For example: does a college require a student to take an ancient or modern world history, or can they satisfy this need by taking a course in say, “Evolution of Medical Care in Ancient Civilizations,” as their sole history requirement? At the top of their rankings, no one will find the colleges that top the U.S. News list.

What’s a family to make of this discrepancy? How to evaluate surveys that use reputation over student engagement? Financial reserves over evidence of learning? For many, the real acknowledgment is that the colleges that lead the U.S. News rankings may do so because of who fills their student body; after all, success seems assured when you choose your students body from among the top 2% of college applicants.

Such rankings pop up throughout the year and have begun to wend their way to secondary schools. One respected newspaper touts its annual survey of the “nation’s top high schools.”  The list has been taken as gospel by many, reprinted in national magazines. Yet the list is almost exclusively based on a single criterion: the percentage of students taking Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate classes. It does not examine whether students are learning in those classes, nor is there a word about services to those unsuited for AP classes, or measuring demonstrated readiness for college success through an examination of writing skills.

Students and parents will look to the rankings because they are drawn to the simplicity of the charts. The important role that both school-based counselors and educational consultants must play is to ensure that parents understand this simple, direct concept: a college must be evaluated by how well its programs, mission, academic offerings, campus environment, and more, meet the specific needs of one’s own student. Our role in the weeks ahead is educational: inform parents that while it may be nice for a school or college to be in the “top 10,” such a ranking has no direct relevance to them. They need to look beyond the charts and discover whether a school is the right match for their child: does it meet our academic, social, and community needs and desires?

Students exploring potential colleges should not look to see who is rated #1, but rather, does a college I’m looking at succeed not only with students ‘at the top’ (who frankly may succeed anywhere), but with students who learn the way I do; who need a class size that works best for me; that establishes (or not) relationships with professors; that seeks a balance of academics and social life; and a level of peer support or competition—based on what I am looking for, not what works for a magazine editor?

Finally, I know full well that rankings will not disappear. But let’s all pledge to assist parents in understanding the limitations of rankings, and better understand the concept of “fit” and “match” which has driven the mission of the Independent Educational Consultants Association and its nearly 900 members for almost 35 years.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

by Mark Sklarow, IECA Executive Director

A new study, part of the GoodWork Project Report Series from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, cast an eye to ‘the commercialization of the college application process and the rise of the for-profit educational consultant.’  The report, authored by Alexis Brooke Redding, was released late last week.  Redding sought to discover the impact of the growing field of educational consulting and what is being done to regulate and promote “good work” in the field.

Redding first documented the rise—and reasons behind it—of the use of independent educational consultants (IECs), noting the increased level of frenzy seen in college admissions today, the shift to aggressive marketing techniques among colleges and subsequent ‘consumerist view’ in admissions offices of the process, as well as the growing student-to-counselor ratios in school districts across the United States. Additionally, the report notes that with the process for applying to college changing so dramatically over the last 20 years, even parents who attended colleges feel ill-equipped to advise their children today.

Along with growth, the report examines the role IECs play in the process. It quotes Tim Lee, stating that the field of educational consulting, led by IECA, is focused on helping students find the “best fit” schools.  This underscores my belief that it was IECA members who first introduced “good match or fit” into the college admission vernacular. The author concurs that the role of IECs is to use “their ability to draw upon their broad base of knowledge to help students explore the range of options.” Notes Redding, there is a “professional mantra that the goal is for a counselor to use his or her expertise to facilitate the process so that the student can get into schools based on merit and fit.”

The author cites evidence of the growth in consultant use and cites independent research that today “22% of all freshmen at private, four-year colleges [in 2006] have used IECs.”  This enforces the results of other independent research this past year that found that 26% of high achieving seniors used an educational consultant in their college search or application process. Redding concludes that “IECs are becoming an integral part of the revised admissions process.”

The author notes that the field needs three bases in order to gain recognition as a true profession: knowledge, skill and an underlying ethical framework.  She raises a concern about those who do not attain the knowledge or adhere to such published ethical guidelines.  She also raises red flags about those not choosing to join professional organizations that both examine qualifications, provide education and training, and require adherence to ethical precepts.  In this regard, the report cites IECA frequently, noting our Standards of Excellence as well as our Principles of Good Practice.  More than just ethics, competence and experience are noted:

“The standards for acceptance into NACAC and IECA highlight the importance of experience and expertise.  For example, in order to become a Professional Member of IECA, one has to have a master’s degree in a related field, 3+ years of experience, a record of service to more than 50 students, a minimum of 50 campus visits, and three professional references.”  The report indicates that parents have a responsibility to ensure that the consultant they use rises to this level of knowledge and ethical behavior and suggests such requirements be demanded of all practitioners.

Other professionals in the field also saw our leadership.  The report quotes Dr. William Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions at Harvard: “the field is ‘a little bit like the Wild West’ in which IECA ‘is doing the best it can’ to deal with the ‘set of cottage industries that have developed.’”  He also saw that “in some cases, the use of an independent is highly appropriate.”

The report also praised IECA by noting my own statement that IECA is committed to serving all students, whether they can afford consultants or not. Says Redding “A visit to the IECA website supports his [Sklarow's] statement.  They have a link for parents and students with downloads…” Moreover she notes IECA “publications highlight the importance of professional memberships, experience, and transparency in pricing… By following these guidelines, families would have excellent resources to aid them in finding a qualified counselor and would be better able to protect themselves from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous practitioners.” Finally she notes “IECA members have been vetted during the membership application process, thus assuring that they have met their standards.”

When one interviewee was asked about the benefits of her professional affiliations she noted: “assurance to clients that we follow the principles of good practice for both NACAC and IECA; constant professional development; networking opportunities with my colleagues; opportunities to both attend and participate in conferences…”  In this regard, the report qutoes me saying “ANYONE can PROMISE that they work ethically.  By joining [IECA] you say to the public: I’m being watched: if I violate those ethical guidelines, someone will step in and act… That’s how you know that I am honest, competent, and well qualified.”  David Hawkins, Vice President of NACAC noted, “only members of either of our organizations [NACAC and IECA] are subject to our rules.

Bottom Line:  The author calls independent educational consulting an “aspiring profession.”  While extolling the work that IECA has done to advance the field, it is clear that she believes that today only those who choose to professionally affiliate have agreed to be ‘vetted’ and be held to high ethical standards.  The field will achieve greater status when the vast majority of those practicing agree to meet these or similar standards.

This report mirrors the view endorsed by the IECA executive board that IECA must grow to represent the vast majority of those qualified, ethical consultants in the field.  As I have said before, just as every good doctor believes he or she must join the AMA and every ethical lawyer must join the American Bar Association, so too should every qualified, ethical consultant join IECA.  As I read it, the report affirms this mission.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consultants Association

Yesterday afternoon the IECA Summer Training Institute turned the process around as the 94 attendees got to hear what life is like for those involved in recruiting and evaluating potential clients in a session titled, Inside the Admissions Office.

In the college session, three leaders came to share insights: Erin Finn, vice president for admissions at Drexel University, who explained the changing nature of admissions as offices look for ways to balance the entering class while filling campus needs. She noted the possibility of hearing from a band director that the harpist is graduating and admissions should be on the lookout for a new harpist. Conversely, she noted the school is not going to admit six amazing, accomplished harpists when space exists for only one. Likewise, she noted the role of admissions is to ensure that each department has interested students among those incoming.

Richard Floyd, director of admission at Ursinus College (one of the Colleges That Change Lives), returned for the second year as a panelist. Richard noted the outsize role U.S. News & World Report plays in their annual rankings in influencing students and parents. He shared that colleges, while being dismayed at the criteria used, often actively promote themselves to colleagues in an effort to raise their profile. Erin, from Drexel, added that colleges crow about better standings (Drexel named one of five colleges to watch) and downplay when the rankings or attention invariably declines.

Suzi Nam, director of admission at Swarthmore College also participated. She noted the importance of a student’s application demonstrating a match to the university’s mission. A school like Swarthmore, where they seek students that value the pursuit of knowledge above all else (even grades), admission reps should be able to tell in the application why a candidate suits that mission.

All three endorsed the role of educational consultants in general, with one noting that good advising is as necessary to the college search and application process as a realtor is to the home search/sale. The group also noted the admiration they have for IECA members as being particularly professional, ethical, and knowledgeable. Each indicated their willingness to take calls and in queries from IECA members, when the goal is gathering general information and not advocating on behalf of an applicant.

It was a great session and was duplicated for school and therapeutic specialists separately. More details will follow in a future blog.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consultants Association

While enrollment in traditional four-year colleges has edged up slowly in recent years, the numbers attending for-profit, post-secondary trade and technical schools has soared. In the last 10 years, enrollment in such ‘career colleges’ has increased by more than 200% with nearly 2 million students currently attending. Culinary, computer, forensics, and other programs have become especially popular as the economy soured and twenty-somethings looked to gain marketable skills.

With such growth comes greater scrutiny and the federal government is looking into allegations that some of the growth has been fueled by false or deceptive promotion, and recruitment strategies that skirt the law and burden students with high debt.

The proposed legislation, drafted by the Department of Education would require trade and technical schools and other for-profit colleges to fully disclose graduation and job placement rates. Anyone watching daytime television knows full well that many of these schools advertise heavily (the perfect time to reach the unemployed), promoting their schools as the path to a great career. Another part of the legislation being debated examines whether recruiters to for-profit schools target those unable to afford classes and burden students with unrealistic debt.

Recruitment to career colleges is examined in another section of the proposal. In many schools, salaries of recruiters are tied closely to incentives for success in enrolling students. While federal law prohibits direct fees based on per capita recruitment, many such vocational and for-profit schools skirt the law by providing bonuses for success without tying the fees paid to specific numbers of students registering. The proposal would tighten these rules, eliminating such incentives.

About a year ago I met with Harris Miller, president of the Career College Association, a group representing some 1,500 for-profit schools. It was clear in this meeting that post-secondary trade and technical schools provide a valuable alternative to traditional college settings. In many cases such schools have the latest equipment and turn out graduates fully prepared to enter the workforce in a chosen field. The growing numbers suggest the need for educational consultants to be aware of career colleges and know the strengths and weaknesses of those in their community. However, for-profit schools must ensure that their recruitment policies are ethical, honest, and fair to prospective students, in order to eliminate any concerns that they are purely in the business of generating income by making wildly impossible promises and rewarding recruiters to bring in students at all costs.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

A study conducted earlier this year, and recently published by the College Board and Art & Science Group LLC, indicated that students and parents are making decisions about college applications and matriculation based on financial aid information that is incorrect, incomplete, and inaccurate. In the survey, 59% of students indicated that they eliminated colleges after looking at the “sticker price” with no consideration given to possible financial aid and the “net cost” of attending. No wonder, as a quarter of all students said their parents were requiring them to attend the most affordable school and another 40% had parents insist they apply to ‘more affordable’ colleges. Of course, most of these determinations were based on published list prices. Only a small portion of the population had used any financial aid calculator to determine what sort of financial aid they might qualify for. Meaning most families were flying blind. Those who were thinking about financial aid were further off base. When asked to guess what sort of financial aid they expected to qualify for, most families significantly over-stated the amount of merit aid they thought they would qualify for, even for students with very low standardized test scores. While the national average for merit aid is about 15% of college costs, families estimated it would be one-third.

Even when faced with higher tuition than they felt they could afford, the survey found that families were willing to explore the possibility of a college. This was seen as a sign that under certain circumstances families are willing to stretch their definition of “affordability.” The qualities that get families to examine such out-of-their-budget schools: strong academics in their major, a place where students can fit in, a stellar reputation, and a solid record of placing graduates in good jobs or graduate programs.

It is clear that families need more and easier-to-comprehend information about college finances. With the cost of college rivaling only the cost of purchasing a home in a family’s financial history, clear and accurate financing information is an essential part of the college search process. Yet today, armed with faulty assumptions and bad information, and complicated by rules and regulations that confound rather than amplify, families are at a loss. Members of the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA), long seen as the most knowledgeable source of information about college selection, need to expand and enhance their services to provide students and parents with clear, accurate and understandable information on college affordability. We have asked our College Committee to develop materials for a new financial aid flyer for IECA members to provide to client families.

As an association we will post this basic information on our Web site to ensure it reaches everyone. We have also pledged to work with national organizations to assist in clarifying and simplifying the financial aid information available to families.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

by Jane Klemmer, IECA Associate Member (New York)

Independent educational consultants understand the importance of visiting colleges in order to expand or update our knowledge of the many higher education options available. These visits to campuses familiarize us with the unique qualities of each school and enable us to effectively help students find the right fit for college. We visit colleges on our own and on IECA tours, but also take advantage of campus visits organized by college consortiums that are arranged specifically for counselors and educational consultants. Anywhere from a few days to a week’s time, we zigzag across states by bus, with the hope of getting a firsthand look that will better enable us to understand the essence of a college and therefore, know whether a school would be appropriate for a student.

This summer a group of counselors and educational consultants from across the U.S. will come together in southern California and tour colleges by less conventional means: on bikes. Why not take a bus, car, or train, you might ask. These 19 hardy souls, including two IECA members, Bill Dingledine (South Carolina) and myself, are looking to combine the professional objective of expanding our college knowledge, with a host of other goals that include satisfying a love for cycling and physical exercise, camaraderie, personal fulfillment, and last, but not least, for fun. I would be disingenuous if I declared that I held a long-term passion for cycling. In fact, prior to officially committing to the tour a couple of months ago, I had not been on a bike in years. But embracing the challenge to train and the desire to see colleges in a novel way was all the motivation I needed.

On July 4 the group will gather at the University of the Redlands, about 65 miles east of Los Angeles, where we begin our journey. The first order of business will be to rent bikes, for those of us who will not be transporting our own, followed by the installation of racks and panniers to store our clothing and gear for the week. Yes, much to my chagrin, there is no SAG vehicle bringing up the rear (an Internet search taught me that the acronym stands for Support and Gear), which would carry our stuff and come to the aid of riders in need of assistance. I will learn the true meaning of “packing light” knowing that for one week’s time I will serve as my own packhorse.

Our travels take us to 14 schools including University of the Redlands, the five undergraduate colleges that comprise the Claremont Colleges consortium (Claremont McKenna, Pomona, Pitzer, Scripps, and Harvey Mudd), University of LaVerne, Azusa Pacific University, the University of Southern California, Cal Tech, UCLA, Occidental College, Pepperdine University and Loyola Marymount. We will cycle 30 to 50 miles a day, stopping at each campus long enough to tour the schools, meet with admissions, and get a sense for the academic and social communities. Our last stop each day will likely be our place of rest for the night, and since our accommodations will mostly be in dorms, we will truly get a firsthand college experience.

I am stepping up my training as I count down the weeks to the “College Tour de California.” I am looking forward to the trip with great anticipation, but I am also excited about the prospect of meeting with students when I return. I know there is a good chance I will discover just the college that will make me want to say to a student or two, “I’ve got a great school in mind for you!”

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser

by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, Independent Educational Consultants Association

The 2010 survey of IECA Members has now been released, revealing this year’s “Top Ten Strengths and Experiences Colleges Look for in High School Students.”  While several items topping the list are unchanged despite the overheated college application process, there are a number of changes to the list as items have been added, others have fallen lower on the list, and a number of things that families believe to be critical don’t get anywhere close to making the list.

As has been true for more than five years, a student’s academic performance in high school tops the list. Most important is a rigorous academic curriculum that challenges the student. While grades are important, educational consultants believe that demonstrating a willingness to challenge oneself is more important. Additionally, IECA members felt that grades need to show an upward trend—mediocre grades in the freshman year can be overcome by demonstrating that better grades came with maturity. After all, colleges want to know what type of student will be arriving on campus—not who the student was four years go.

Solid SAT or ACT scores, reflecting a consistency with academic achievement was #3 on the list.  IECA members felt that terrific standardized tests are rarely enough to secure admission at a competitive school, but poor scores can be difficult to overcome.

Coming up on the list next: passionate involvement in a few activities (#4), meaningful letters of recommendation  (#5), and a well-written essay that provides insight into the student’s personality, values and goals(#6).  The importance of the essay moved up since the last survey, perhaps reflecting the essay’s role as more colleges move to ‘test optional’ status.

Debuting on this year’s list at #8 is “Demonstrated leadership in activities.”  Much has been said in recent years about colleges seeking students who will contribute in a meaningful way to campus life. The appearance of this on the IECA list underscores this growing desire. Following this, demonstrated intellectual curiosity (#9) remains an important item, particularly with more competitive schools.

Rounding at the top 10 is “Demonstrated enthusiasm to attend,” an item that first appeared just a few years ago. This would reflect the college admission office concern over their yield: wanting to offer admission only to those who seem serious about enrolling.

Just missing the top ten list: financial resources (despite the economy) and out of school experiences. This latter item fell off the top ten list, although “special talents and abilities (#7) remained.

Much has been written about the trend toward creative applications with videos or other unique components, but this placed far down, well out of the top ten list. Also relegated to a status of far less importance by IECA members were several items thought by the general public to be important to decision-making: the personal interview, being a legacy (family member of an alum), and demonstrations of responsibility as being far less important in the current admission climate.

The full list, just released can be found here, with copies soon available for order from IECA. This list has become, over the years, a major survey sought by the media, used by school districts, and many others. It offers great advice for families looking to understand the nature of college admission.

• share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later
• Bookmark in Browser