by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

I had a brief e-mail exchange last week with Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Education. He called my attention to the Web site of a consulting firm that was meant to appeal to parents of one ethnic group. Scott was pretty sure that the owner of the site wasn’t an IECA member, and he was certainly correct. To me, everything about that site—and the approach taken by those charlatans—reflected the worst of private consulting.

What they were selling, versus what reputable, ethical consultants—those who are members of the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA)—provide to families is the difference between student success and parental failure.

The Web site Scott directed me to, and scores of others like it that I have seen in recent years, speak only to the narrow question of HOW TO GET IN. That is, no discussion of how to choose a school, what benefits come with a large vs. small school, public or private, urban or rural, cut throat or supportive, liberal-minded or conservative, diverse or not, close relationships with teaching staff or large lecture halls. None of that—or hundreds of other criteria—is ever mentioned. What is being sold: how to get into to a very exclusive school.

Whenever I explore such a site (knowing the services of a consultant are being offered to students, but with parents as the customer), I fear for the child. For the parent drawn in by such claims is seeking, I think, some level of prestige that they think they get for themselves when their child enrolls (or all too often is rejected from!). They are asking all the wrong questions: How do “we” get in? What do we have to do? What are the secrets?

Here are the questions I’d rather see parents asking:

What’s the best fit?

Where will my child thrive, mature, grow?

What will best suit her/his learning and motivational style?

Where will they be happy?

Where will my child be successful over the long haul?

What often makes this worse—and this was certainly true of the ad I was directed to last week: the admission process at elite schools was portrayed in an almost secretive, sinister light. The consultants promised that they knew the secrets, the language, the keys to use to fool the admission staff into accepting their child. How absurd! In this specific instance parents were warned that discrimination against their child’s ethnic group was rampant and only by using their secrets and their tricks could their child get in.

Once and for all let’s say what is the truth: admission staff members are hard-working, dedicated professionals seeking to create a freshman class reflective of the school’s overall mission and strategy in as fair a way as they can. They accept students who are the strongest candidates within that framework based on what they have achieved and their potential—both personally and what they’ll bring to campus. A good consultant succeeds when s/he understands a college, appreciate its strengths and weaknesses, and can pair this to what a student needs to thrive, succeed, and be happy.

The choice for parents is clear when they explore a consultant’s Web site or interview them by phone in order to determine if they are honest, capable, knowledgeable, and have your child—and your family’s—best interests at heart. What is the central focus of their “pitch”? The success of your child over the next four or five years at a school where he or she will grow and learn and mature—or just getting in? And which is it you really want for your child?

Or to be more stark, parents can ask themselves the following question: “Which is my priority: my child getting in, at all costs even to a school where they may not be happy or well-suited but will bring honor to me?” Or:  “Finding a great match where my child will shine and succeed?” And let’s again note: these firms promising to use smoke and mirrors are full of nonsense: they have no ability to “get your child in,” and despite their claims, no proven track record. Jacques Steinberg of the New York Times looked at the claims made by many of these companies and found them full of lies, distortions, and false claims. That’s why none of them can gain membership to a group like IECA.

I’m proud to represent the organization that has talked about and promoted the importance of the “match” for more than 20 years. We have fought the notion of tricks, gimmicks, and packaging of students. IECA believes that success is measured not by the thickness of the envelope but by the richness of the school experience. I hope you agree.

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, from the IECA Conference in Charlotte, NC

There is an article worth reading in today’s USA Today that explores the National Survey of Student Engagement, or NSSE, research conducted by Indiana University. The research, based on surveys of more than 2 million students on 443 college campuses over ten years, examines the critical issue of how ENGAGED students are…in their studies, their university, and with the faculty. The premise behind the research is direct: the more engaged a student is, the more successful they are likely to be.

The NSSE studies are dramatically different from traditional research or evaluations of campuses, and that difference is one that educational consultants have been talking about for years. NSSE has been a featured topic at IECA conferences in recent years. For example, a Middle States Evaluation Team may ask a university how many books are in its library or how many opportunities for artistic exploration exist. NSSE research asks students how much they USE the library, how many books they’ve read and whether they have attended an art show, performance piece, or music demonstration on campus.

NSSE research is often used by universities where such research is conducted as a way to better understand how engaged a student is, and what can be changed to enhance opportunities. Many colleges cited in the USA Today piece spoke about major research projects, innovative group projects, and freshman year programs, all designed to better connect students to the faculty, to the college, and each other.

Student engagement is harder to quantify, of course, than say, how large a school’s endowment is or what the admission yield is. That is why those surveys of so called “top schools” like U.S. News and World Reports often use criteria that may sound impressive but matter little to the student or may have little impact on a student’s success.

How then does a family come to understand the importance of engagement, and even more importantly, locate schools that would engage their own child? After all, what will engage a dynamic, inquisitive, science-oriented student is not the same for a shy, bookish, socially conscious teen. The answer is an educational consultant. Members of the Independent Educational Consultants Association visit college campuses regularly, they look at the NSSE research, and they talk to students.

NSSE identifies five keys to engaging students that all families should keep in mind while exploring college choice: (1) A campus should support both academic and social opportunities for students; (2) A college should provide a rich complement to academic offerings like international study, service learning, internships; (3) Faculty should be student-focused and allow for interaction; (4) Learning should be collaborative and active (NSSE explores, for example, whether students memorize facts or engage in analysis); and (5) Coursework should be intellectually challenging and foster creativity.