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 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

by Emily Snyder, IECA (Virginia)

Yesterday’s edition of Inside Higher Ed has a very interesting question and answer session with Margaret K. Nelson, A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Sociology at Middlebury College, and the author of a new book, Parenting Out of Control: Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times (New York University Press). Nelson takes the philosophy behind the late Bill Strauss’s and Nathaniel Howe’s defining ‘helicopter parent’ trend one step further; she discusses the impact of a number of factors, including U.S. News & World Report’s college rankings, the changing communication styles between parents and their children, and differing socio-economic factors, on the heightened sense of competition in the college admissions process. Specific to our work as consultants, Nelson discusses and responds to questions on whether parents have become too involved in the process of selecting and applying to colleges, addresses the difficulties in defining one ‘appropriate’ level of involvement, and of most interest to me, responds to the question: “How does the (perceived) increased in the difficulty of getting into college (particularly at an elite institution) impact parenting styles?”

For anyone looking to understand the psychology behind the ‘helicopter parent’ phenomenon, I suspect her book will be well read. As a consultant who helps students and families navigate the college admissions process, this book has just moved to the top of my summer reading list.

• 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

As the competitiveness in college admission continues to grow, and with it parent anxieties, school systems across the country seem to be in a frenzy to grow their Advanced Placement (AP) offerings. In doing so, many schools place increased pressure on students to take AP courses in a desire to strengthen their students’ college applications and meet parental demands.

The problem of course is that schools need to meet three conditions BEFORE such a plan can be successful: (1) adequate training for teachers who will be responsible for the AP curriculum; (2) adequate preparation for students; and (3) sensible screening of students before placing them into AP classes. The current lack of such planning is further harmed when national “experts” evaluate and rate schools based on how many AP courses they offer and how many students are “pushed to challenge” themselves, with little attention paid to how many succeed. Some schools are reporting failure rates exceeding 70%!

Nationally more than 41% of students are now failing AP tests (receiving a grade of 1 or 2, typically considered failing). This is a 14% increase in the failure rate over the last decade. Much of the increase, and the highest failure rates, are seen in the South where almost half of all students fail, including more than 55% in New Mexico, Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia. During this same decade the number of students enrolled in AP courses has more than doubled.

As recent IECA surveys indicate, students are best served when they take challenging classes and succeed in them. Looking at these new figures, one has to wonder whether the groundwork has been laid for this huge increase in offerings and participation as students in alarming numbers are not able to pass these tests. Are schools and counselors properly advising students when they are urged into coursework that is either above their ability or when a class’s progress is delayed because improper screening was done? One wonders if the growth has been pushed by an organization that materially benefits when more students take AP courses and tests—whether they are fully prepared for success or not.

Let’s continue to challenge students, but let’s use some common sense. Let’s also look at schools where three-quarters of student fail, and ensure that teachers are properly trained and students are able to handle the requirements.

• 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