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, 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 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 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

The Secondary School Admission Test Board is an organization originally created to handle the administration of entrance exams for the nation’s independent schools. Over the years, that mission has grown as the SSATB extended its reach into more than 100 countries, developed a Standard Application Online, new tracking strategies for school applications and financial aid, entered into training for admission directors and their staff, and took a leadership role in research and promotion of independent education. As a result, the organization has voted to re-create itself as the Consortium for Independent Education. This newly titled umbrella organization will serve its mission through a number of subsidiaries. These include the familiar SSAT in North America and (with a global subsidiary) throughout the world; ‘The Admissions Organization’ to serve admission professionals; a division that will be dedicated to providing services for families; and the ‘Princeton Institute for Educational Research.’

The move is the culmination of a strategic initiative begun in 2005, and we wish SSATB much success as it both formalizes the expanded services it has pursued in recent years, and continues to expand these services and research moving forward.

• 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

It is that time of year, when colleges announce their tuition and fee schedule for the 2010-2011 school year. Throughout the country we have seen college administrators act so aggressively to pat themselves on the back that I suspect more than a few have had to go to the hospital with arm strain. After a year where tuition increases in some schools exceeded 10 percent—and where some colleges raised tuition mid-year, an almost unheard of decision heading into the current semester—many have been relieved to see increases limited to just 3, 4, or 5 percent.

College registrars have been touting increases, generally in the 3 to 4 percent range, as evidence that they understand the economic frustration of students and families and fears among many that larger increases would have devastating effect on students’ ability to remain enrolled.

Such comments leave me extremely frustrated and show how divorced from reality many colleges are.

I have tracked, for about 20 years, how college tuition has increased at roughly DOUBLE the rate of inflation. That means in those years that the consumer price index increased by 4 percent, tuition typically increased by 8 percent. When inflation was 5 percent, tuition grew by 10 percent. So where were we in 2009? We had essentially no inflation with the annual rate at -0.4 percent. So have colleges matched that lack of inflation by holding the line? No, the current 3 to 4 percent increases are dramatically higher than the inflation rate. Even as we look at the first few months of 2010, the Consumer Price Index is up about 2 percent, reflecting, yet again, college tuition rising at double the cost of other goods and services.

When one looks over time, it is easy to see how college tuition has gotten ridiculously out of hand: if the price of food has about doubled over the last 20 years, the price of going to college is up 400 percent or more. Given that wages have not come close to matching this increase, we can easily see the growing impossibility of affording college for those of modest means. This explains the growing trend of students graduating with loans beyond what any 22-year-old should face.

In the current climate we understand that other factors weigh heavily on colleges. States are essentially bankrupt, resulting in a freeze in college funding for the luckiest of state universities, and outright cuts to many. Yet colleges are also seeing the result of a generation of run-away costs and tuition hikes.

As we look to the future, families must stop seeing colleges as resorts: we all have seen parents who visit campuses and are enthralled by the lavish health clubs, dining halls, arts centers, and more. Colleges may need to look at the highly paid “professors” who conduct research but do not teach, among other efforts, to keep the lid on costs. Keeping college affordable is a mission that should dominate college administrators’ efforts today, and all of us need to watch this effort.

• 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

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