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

We have learned that The Princeton Review will announce, sometime today, new seminars available in person or online covering issues like writing a great college essay, building a college list, how the college application works, and other process-oriented topics. Such a development underscores two truths: there is increased anxiety and confusion over admissions; and most students don’t have many resources—especially in public schools where counselors are overburdened with unfair case loads, increasingly complex problems, and little support for professional development. This deprives students and families of the information they need to both navigate the process and fully explore their choices.

To be clear: we welcome any innovations that bring good, accurate, vital information to students. All should welcome that TPR has found a way to deliver information at a relatively low cost, using new technologies. Students need—and deserve—complete knowledge.

Of course much of this process information—standardized test dates, how to visit college campuses, what makes for a good essay—has been available for many years: scores of books are available at Borders Books on these subjects, Web sites number in the thousands, most college admission offices share that same information, and for many students their school counseling office can provide these details. If TPR has found a way to reach a new population, great! I hope they find a way to make such information available in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and much more, as many first generation college families need assistance as well.

The important caveat here is that the college search and application process involves TWO components: the process details as described above, and the knowledge/match piece that is so critical. It is here where we talk about understanding students’ personalities, learning styles, social, educational, and community needs, and knowing enough about hundreds of colleges to assist in identifying appropriate matches. While the basic process information may be able to be disseminated in a group, the knowledge/match requires one-on-one consultation, sufficient time to really understand a student, exploration of essay topics, and evaluative tours of campus after campus. This piece can only be done through exceptional counseling. It is in this area that educational consultants shine.

With limited caseloads, extensive training, educational and professional development, continual travel to visit campuses, and the highest ethical standards, IECA member educational consultants provide families and students with amazing potential to not only understand the process, but also take ownership of it. To not only know what makes for a good essay in general terms, but to spend time with an expert to explore their lives, their interests, their values to discover an essay topic that gives real insight to who they are. And take the time, directed by a consultant, to explore the wide range of educational opportunities to find those that offer the best match. The goal of IECA consultants: a student who thrives, grows socially and academically, and achieves success at college.

As one of the nation’s leading educational associations, we welcome the use of new technologies and new efforts to reach students and families with critical information. IECA and its members will keep our commitment to the highest standards of service both to those who can afford independent consulting services and the thousands served through pro bono efforts, and the IECA Foundation’s initiatives.

• 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

Yesterday about a dozen IECA members visited three Ontario, Canada colleges. During those campus visits, one school provided the consultants with their “Recruitment Representative Agreement.” Confusing “consultants” and “agents,” this college assumed IECA members accepted reimbursements in exchange for referring students, guaranteeing a per-head ‘kick-back’ of 12% of the freshman year tuition.

Our members could not escape the irony as I had just blogged about these agency fees yesterday (IECA’s First Conference Held Outside U.S. Reflects Our International Growth), and a copy of that blog made its way around the bus. I have also addressed this issue in recent blogs (University Use of Agents Back in the News with $78 Million Fine; Note to Colleges: An Unethical Practice Domestically is No Less Wrong Internationally).

What I realized yesterday is a simple but unfortunate fact: An agent may refer a student to a college and the college knows it—after all they’ll be receiving a check for thousands of dollars. But there is no guarantee that the student is a good match and no indication that they will last their entire collegiate career at that school. A consultant may recommend a student—or several—to the college, but the college never knows because the consultant’s work is in the background, rarely seen or heard from. Yet the student working with the consultant is more likely to find the college a great match, because success of the student is the only motivator for the consultant.

A consultant considers every option, not just the few schools that agree to pay the finder’s fee. Unfortunately, colleges simply don’t know how many or which students arrived because they worked with an educational consultant.

When colleges think about reaching out to agents they know exactly how many students enrolled. Consultants have seemingly gone out of their way to hide such information; yet the field of consulting has doubled in the last six years and IECA’s membership and our reach has grown dramatically. I have begun to argue that IECA members should do more—perhaps must do more—to ensure colleges know how many students we work with and how many freshmen they welcomed worked with our members. After all, these students examined many options, determined that this specific college was the best match, and are more likely to stay through graduation. Why would we want to hide such information?

It is true that there are some consultants who “package” students, write essays, and hype profiles. But that description does NOT include members of the Independent Educational Consultants Association. And we must work to ensure that colleges know this difference and partner with us. After all, we share one over-arching goal: students that thrive and succeed on campus.

• 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 Consulting Association

I spent the last few days attending the Potomac and Chesapeake Association for College Admission Counseling (PCACAC) Conference in Dover, Delaware with school counselors, college admission officials, and independent educational consultants from Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, DC, and West Virginia. I heard a couple of themes emerge that deeply impacted me.

Shannon Gundy, director of undergraduate admissions at the University of Maryland, College Park, served on a panel that I chaired, exploring school counselor/consultant relations. Shannon noted that in preparation for her presentation, she asked members of her staff how often they “heard from or worked with” an educational consultant. Their answer: about once a month. That led Shannon to conclude that the University of Maryland doesn’t really have much of a relationship with educational consultants and gets relatively few students applying to the state’s flagship school.

Of course recent independent studies would suggest otherwise. The Lipman Hearne study, aided by the National Research Center for College and University Admissions, showed that 26% of high achieving students—exactly the kind that would explore admission to the University of Maryland—used educational consultants. Yet educational consultants have worked so hard to keep their existence in the background that we may have led to the impression that we are of little consequence, hiding our significance (and growing numbers), and suggesting to colleges that we are an unimportant constituency. In reality, for many colleges we are their greatest source for out-of-region students. Shannon wondered why we didn’t make our numbers better known.

I was reminded of a panel at our Summer Training Institute a few years back. There, Corky Surbeck, dean of admission at Goucher College, was asked if he ‘minded’ if a consultant called him to discuss any special circumstances. He surprised everyone in the room when he stated flatly that he wished consultants called more. He noted that consultants—fully qualified and vetted consultants like those in IECA—have an interesting insight that he and his admission staff needed to hear. With students applying to Goucher for all sorts of reasons, he knew one thing: if a student working with a consultant was applying to Goucher, there was a good reason the consultant thought it was a good fit. He and his staff would welcome finding out why.

Consultants have been so wary about being seen publicly that many advise their students, when faced with the questions about “how they heard of the Common Application” or “Did you use an educational consultant in your application,” to leave the question blank—again, diluting the strength of our numbers, our work, and our efforts on behalf of students.

The other comment I have heard replaying in my head came from a twenty-something school counselor attending that session. She noted a strain of unacceptance: That school counselors resist cooperating with consultants, and consultants advise their students not to reveal to the school that they are involved. She found this absurd! “Aren’t we all working for the same goal: serving students?” she asked. When she was told what NACAC and other institutions were like 10-15 years ago when consultants were not well respected, she noted that this was ancient history and it was time we moved on.

Truer words were never spoken. It is time we moved on, taking our seat at the table, reflective of our professionalism and commitment to students. IECA introduced the phrase “good fit” into popular use more than 15 years ago. Our members have visited more campuses, hold a higher percentage of certifications, attend more professional training, and find great matches. It is time that every college, school, and parent know it. It is time for us to assert our knowledge and our leadership.

• 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

An article in the Stanford Daily has gotten a lot of attention over the weekend. It raised a question about the authenticity of student applications to the prestigious school, after an advertisement appeared in the campus newspaper for an “admission boot camp” run by an unaffiliated educational consultant whose ethics have long been questioned. The article effectively challenges the Stanford admissions office to seek assurances from students that they “did not receive outside help” in preparing their application to the school. The problem for Stanford—and every other college in America—is that such a question is impossible to answer.

Consider a student in a suburban public school who spends an entire quarter of their 11th grade English class writing and re-writing their college essay, with four or five edits from his or her teacher. Is this outside help? Is such help fair to students who attend a school where fewer students go to college, so such a class assignment is not given?

Consider the number of students who get help on preparation for their ACTs or SATs. Would this require disclosure? In some communities the vast majority of students get such after-school help, so should these students have to “disclose” this on an application as if they are all doing something wrong? Some schools include “SAT vocabulary” as part of the curriculum. It may not be paid assistance, but is this an unfair advantage over students who don’t have such a curriculum?

Consider the difference between a student at a small private school where a college counselor works with just 30-35 students. The counselor may have time to meet with students often for lengthy conversations about college choice and the application process  (is this the ultimate in paid assistance?). Counselors in private schools report tremendous pressure to get students in the most exclusive colleges, so that they can then publish “College Acceptance” lists and use these for student recruitment. How does that experience compare to a public school student in California that is one of 1,000 assigned to a counselor? The entire one-on-one counseling this student sees may be fewer than five minutes. Should that private school student have to “disclose” the additional time and assistance they received? Or might independent college advising be just what the public school student needs to balance the scales a bit; NOT to get the student in to Stanford, but to allow adequate time to discuss the kind of college where they might be successful?

The article implies that students who use educational consultants are somehow “cheating.” Yes, we know that there are some unethical consultants. We know as well that some students pay for essays. But we also know that there is a world of difference between IECA members and the others. IECA members commit to working on the ‘right match’ not on ‘getting in.’ IECA members believe in reducing family anxieties by empowering students to take control of their college search. IECA members refuse to play a heavy role in the college essay: they work with students to find a good topic that conveys who they are, and expect students to tell it in their own voice, at their own ability level. This is why many colleges who claim not to work closely with consultants make the exception for IECA members.

There is some irony that this article appeared in Stanford’s newspaper. IECA members were warmly greeted when they were invited to visit Stanford’s campus last year. The Dean of Admission has accepted several invitations to speak before IECA groups, and one high level official at the college hired an IECA member consultant to explore his own child’s educational options. Officials there know and appreciate the difference between IECA members and the help we give families. A student who indicates they worked with an IECA member should be a reassurance to the admission committee both that the application reflects the student’s own work, and that they are applying to Stanford not based on reputation alone, but after considered thought of a good match.

A recent national survey by the independent research firm, Lipman Hearne, revealed that 26% of high achieving high school students used some fee-for-service assistance in their college search and application process. It was a remarkable discovery that shocked the researchers. More incredible is the awareness that students who work with IECA members are three times more likely to attend a private college and four times more likely to attend school out of state. As schools explore the issue raised in this article, about students disclosing if they received help, private colleges should be aware that over half of their applicants will answer “yes” OR they will discover that asking the question encourages students to lie, rather than be penalized for getting the kind of advice that over-worked and under-supported school counselors cannot provide.

IECA members have every right to be proud of our reputation and the work we do to ensure students get the assistance they need, the advice required, and the support a family requires during an anxiety-prone time. Colleges should be reaching out to work with us as we seek to impose the standards and ethics to ensure a fair and impartial process for all adolescents.

• 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

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.

• 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

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.”

• 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