College app ad in Stanford Magazine troubles some

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
By Kate Abbott

The Stanford admission application asks a variety of questions to gauge a prospective student’s interests in everything from dormitories to academics to potential roommates. An applicant must also sign an honor code.

But what if applicants had to acknowledge whether or not they had used outside help, like a for-profit counseling agency, during the process?

That was the question Shawn Abbott, the director of admission, raised to the faculty’s Committee on Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid earlier this year. Abbott brought up the issue following concerns about an advertisement currently running in the Stanford Magazine for an “application boot camp” run by Michele Hernandez — who bills herself as “America’s premier college consultant” — that has provoked responses from several alumni, according to Kevin Cool, the magazine’s editor.

“The Hernandez company, and probably other similar companies, appear to be helping college applicants, including Stanford applicants, cheat on their applications,” Jonathan Eisenberg ’92 told the Office of Admission in a letter he provided to The Daily.

Hernandez, the head college consultant at Hernandez College Consulting and former assistant director of admissions at Dartmouth, said that characterization is incorrect.

“We’re helping kids who could get into Stanford on their own,” she said. “We can’t invent talents, but we can show how to better represent them.”

The company helps clients outline application strategies to improve their chances and provides oral feedback on essays, Hernandez said. Her experience with applications from the university perspective, she said, means she knows “what would be crossing the line” in terms of help.

She charges up to $40,000 per client, sometimes for months of counseling, Business Week reported in 2007.

According to the magazine’s advertising manager, Phil Johnson, the advertisement is not directly placed by the publication itself; rather, the magazine is a partner with a third-party group called the Ivy League Magazine Network, which purchases advertising space in elite college magazines across the country.

“The magazine does represent the University, and if something is really inappropriate, it is the discretion of the magazine and the editor to pull it,” Johnson said.

So far, there are no plans to remove the advertisement from the Stanford Magazine.

“We’re not contractually obligated to run these ads, but if all other schools are running them, then we need a compelling reason not to,” Cool said.

Richard Shaw, the dean of admission, wrote to several universities also partnered with the Ivy League Network to alert them of Stanford’s situation.

“It has nothing to do with the ads themselves,” Cool added, “but with [the reader’s] perception of the company and the business practices as unethical.”

So, how does an admission officer flag outside help?

“We certainly encounter situations where we are suspicious when the application or the writing appears to be too ‘polished,’ so we always look for multiple pieces of evidence in an application,” Abbott wrote in an e-mail to The Daily. “If the essay is brilliant, we typically expect that the student will also have strong grades in English courses, strong writing test scores and recommendations that talk about a student’s writing ability.”

According to Abbott, there is not a formal policy in place to deal with “suspicious” applications. He would not say directly whether or not an applicant who paid Hernandez’s company for help would be considered cheating.

A move toward a more clear policy, Abbott said, would be to add a question on the Stanford application asking whether or not the applicant received outside help with his or her application. He called it “murky” territory, though, as outside help could range from having a college counselor or teacher provide advice to the “cheating” that alumni like Eisenberg accuse Hernandez’s company of facilitating.

“We’re wrestling with the idea that a question should be added to the application, but it’s not as simple as it sounds,” Abbott said. “If we add such a question, we need to determine what to do with that information, and we need to determine how we address honesty.”

The faculty committee has yet to make a decision on adding such a question.

“We are concerned about adding a question to the application that might encourage students to be less-than-honest if they feel their answer will influence their admission one way or the other,” Abbott said. “The bottom line is that the faculty Committee on Undergraduate Admission & Financial Aid would need to determine if they want us to consider this information in our selection process.”

Cool is concerned, for his part, that rejecting this advertisement when no other university has would set a negative precedent.

“Not everyone agrees that these practices are unethical,” he said. “[Hernandez] could be a savvy entrepreneur that has exploited a market successfully.”

For now, Abbott hopes that applicants remain honest and attest to their own work when signing the personal statement. He likened the online signature to abiding by Stanford’s Fundamental Standard.

“We aren’t blind to the fact that some students use independent college counselors,” Abbott said. Unfortunately for us, it is impossible for us to know exactly who is using a counselor and to what degree.”

Mark Sklarow
All colleges should be concerned about those consultants hired for outrageous sums who seek to influence the admission process and who promote their services to help a student “get admitted” often to highly competitive schools. But these few unethical consultants should not be confused with the work of hundreds of competent, committed, ethical educational consultants who work to assist students and families in finding a great match between the students’ academic, social and community needs with what is offered by the thousands of colleges that exist across the country.
Two recent independent studies noted that public school counselors are often dealing with caseloads 400% above recommended numbers, preventing them from providing the assistance some families need. The second survey found that 26% of high school seniors were using some help in their college search or application. Surely Stanford doesn’t want to dismiss all of those since they were often students performing near the top of their class. Rather let’s draw a distinction between the competent, ethical consultants who go through the extensive screening and requirements of the professional association in the field–The Independent Educational Consultants Association–and the rogue consultants, charging unconscionable fees with outrageous promises and questionable tactics such as those sited above. Thankfully Ms. Hernandez represents the fringes of the profession,not the mainstream.
Jonathan M. Eisenberg
A high school student’s application to Stanford is supposed to represent his or her own work. The undergraduate application form makes that expectation clear. High-priced college admissions consulting companies make it questionable that all such applications reflect the students’ own work, and thereby, in my opinion, compromise the integrity of the college admissions process.
AdmissionsConsultants, Inc., a company based in Vienna, VA, asserts publicly on the Internet as follows: “Our comprehensive admissions services leave no stone unturned: …6. Completion of applications. 7. Preparation of personal statements. 8. Review and editing of essays. NOTE: This step includes proofreading and editing of punctuation as well as advice on strengthening the content to meet the standards of admissions committees as well as play to your assets.” Is a prospective Stanford student who uses this company’s services really doing his or her own work on the applications?
As for the Hernandez company, an apparent key to the services offered is their secrecy. Here’s a public but anonymous testimonial, on the Hernandez company’s Internet site, from somebody who is supposedly a current Stanford undergrad: “Without [Michele Hernandez’s] help, I probably would not have been accepted early to Stanford. If only there were no side effect of giving myself away as someone who received help, I would personally recommend that all of my underclassmen friends who aspire for a top university hire her, because Michele is the (wo)man!” Why is this person afraid of revealing the help that he or she got in getting into Stanford? Probably because the person feels in his or her heart that having used the Hernandez company’s services on the sly was dishonest.
More on secrecy: a 2007 Business Week story about that Hernandez company – that is proudly posted at the company’s Internet site – reported: “From the beginning, Hernandez pledged that all work would be invisible. Like her peers, she operates in stealth, mindful that if admissions officers find out a student was coached they will regard their application with suspicion. …[S]he is especially careful not to leave any fingerprints on the application essays, even as she edits seven, eight, sometimes 10 drafts. ‘But I’m not afraid of admissions officers,’ she says. ‘If they could tell, how would I be so successful?’”
In a CBS News Sunday Morning report about the Hernandez company – also displayed at the company website — Michele Hernandez bragged about being “pretty good at hiding [her] tracks” from college admissions offices.
As alluded to above, the Hernandez company Internet site has dozens of testimonials from students and parents who are/were customers – and whose names are not revealed. These anonymous people do disclose how heavily involved Michele Hernandez personally is in doing other people’s college applications.
One anonymous student, supposedly about to graduate from Dartmouth, wrote, “With Michele on the job, we had completely rewritten all of my essays, totally done my activity list and chart of honors and awards, and put together all of my applications, within TWO SHORT WEEKS. Many days, Michele literally worked with me three hours over the phone, and was constantly helping me write and re-write via e-mail.”
“Dad of two college successes, class of 2007 & 2011:” “From writing the essays…to putting together awesome college applications, Michele was a tremendous asset.”
Here’s a supposed Yalie, class of 2010: “Not only did Michele oversee the entire essay writing process, but she also reviewed our daughter’s ideas with her once she had submitted them in writing to Michele so that only the most cogent and effective ones would be articulated in the essays.”
“Dad of Princeton Class of 2010 student” praises Michele Hernandez for “[h]er help in crafting the essays…”
“Very Satisfied Parents of an Excited Ivy Leaguer, class of 2011”: “Michele helped our child thoroughly prepare the college application so as to best emphasize strengths and accomplishments… When we read our child’s application essays we could hear our child’s voice.” That last statement of amazement that the essays appeared really to come from the supposed author is quite telling, in my opinion.
“Parent of Dartmouth 2012”: “You [Michele Hernandez] assumed the role of ‘editor-in-chief’ as the person whose stamp of approval was needed for all submissions.”
The integrity of Stanford’s admissions process is on the line from these kinds of clandestine activities. The fact that one of these companies openly advertises for customers in the alumni magazine is shameful. The least that Stanford should do is require all applicants to disclose precisely what outside help they got on the applications.
Nancy Griesemer
Mr. Eisenberg,
With all due respect and in deference to your feelings with regard to cheating in college admissions, I’m afraid I don’t get the impression that you heard or even read what Mark Sklarow was trying to say in his defense of the college consulting industry.
The vast majority of college consultants no more countenance cheating than lawyers support breaking the law, and the high-end counselors cited in your letter and discussed in the article no more represent the college advising industry than Bernard Madoff represents investment services.
In the rush to cut budgets, an increasing number of high school students are getting lost in huge guidance caseloads. A substantial percentage of my clients have never met with a guidance counselor on a one-to-one basis and have no idea how to go about assessing colleges or college opportunities.
Does this mean they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and persevere in the face of adversity? Is it cheating to ask for a little help sorting out the confused mess that colleges and their allies in the standardized test industry have made of the admissions process? Or is it cheating to want a second opinion to counter the high-pressure marketing and promotional campaigns for which colleges pay substantial sums of money in order to increase application numbers?
I believe that if you need help whether in calculus, coiffure, interior design, or investment, it’s acceptable to seek it out. In each industry, including the law, you have to rely on professional organizations and oversight agencies to insure that service providers are acting ethically. Lawyers are asked to abide by the standards of the Bar; college consultants abide by the principles and standards of NACAC, IECA, and HECA. By the way, college admissions representatives, including Dean Shaw and Mr. Abbott, also have agreed to the ethical standards imposed by membership in NACAC.
Yes, there are lapses in ethics from time to time—in all industries. But to suggest that the individuals and businesses cited in your letter are representative of all college admissions advisers is just plain wrong. And to imply shame or dishonesty for obtaining help from individuals modeling and upholding the highest ethical standards in college admissions would do a disservice to the process as a whole.
Nancy Griesemer
Parent and College Consultant
Dr. Dean Skarlis
Who’s getting more help? Colleges or students: A non-exhaustive list of just a few of the enrollment management techniques used by colleges to leverage students:
Predictive modeling, a sophisticated formula used to predict how much money to spend on recruiting particular students based on their likelihood to enroll and their desirability – – this is sometimes called “lead scoring;” geodemographic research to find “full pay” and other appealing students; variable print technology used to target specific student interests and skills, the result being that my client will get a completely different, personalized brochure than yours based on their major, gender, zip code (income), athletic skill, etc; Need aware admissions, and more commonly (and less understood) is need aware aid awards based on the candidate’s appeal; sophisticated email campaign technology (that’s actually what they call it “a campaign;” data mining to inform which high schools to visit based on the yield from particular schools in the past (this certainly is not an egalitarian “even playing field” as some recruiters are told not to visit certain schools because their yield has been poor in the past; online “lead generation” sites like Cappex.com – I’m still getting emails from schools explaining that it’s not too late to apply (because I signed up at Cappex as a high school junior football player with a 3.3 GPA and a 1820 SAT – the head coach at one school tells me I’m a great football player and wants me to visit campus…really badly – I got 8 emails & 3 letters…my “parents” even got a personalized letter. A visit to the exhibit hall at NACAC, AACRAO, and all of the “Strategic Enrollment Management” shows how the enrollment management industry has grown to a multibillion dollar market.
I could go on. Does the terminology above support the notion that colleges are about “making the right match?” Don’t get me wrong: These are businesses, and I don’t mind them using most of these tools to increase business, but what I strongly dislike is the “holier than thou” attitude demeaning us (independent counselors) and our students for putting their best foot forward. The hypocrisy is stunningly clear.
Clare Brinkley
You are going down a very slippery slope ( My husband is a Stanford Business School Graduate). I read a lot of school newspapers and stumbled upon your article. For full disclosure, I have 2 seniors applying to colleges this year, neither are applying to Stanford). Let’s take this all the way down that slope and list some ideas that would make it an equal playing field.1) If you want it to be a totally democratic system then You should rule out any one applying form a private institution , since they are already at an advantage with a stronger educational background than an applicant from public school.Private schools offer more individual attention. 2) Why not just cancel the SAT and ACT requirement since that just really tests the skills of how to take a test, and if you Pay for a class to prep for this test, then again you have an advantage. You certainly allow for all of those SAT Prep courses to advertise in your paper.So why not just do away with it since it favors students with parents who can afford to pay for this coaching and prep study. 3) Why not just instead have the application written in a test environment where you give an essay disclosed at the time of the test, under watchful supervision,and the students write their essay right there, no advantage ( Level playing field, no one seemingly has an advantage. WHy do I say this ridiculous statement? That is because, how can you distinguish between an applicant who has a teacher help him/her write and essay , a very intelligent uncle or older sibling etc. Everybody bounces their ideas or topic choice off a variety of people in hopes of delivering their best product. Are they then cheating?? I read an article on the cover of a NY Times 2 years ago that a public school in Paterson N. J. ( a very poor school district) offered summer courses, for free of course, on how to write your essay and complete your application. Is that Cheating???
So in conclusion, because I could go on and on, your article annoyed me because all kids,no matter their background, social/economic, is looking for an advantage or help on their application. If that kid is getting recruited for sports, thats his edge, DO they play Lacrosse at inner city schools, and yet you offer scholarships for that, or the brainiac who wants to study Bio Physics, who might not have the best writing skills asks for a friend to proof read and advise on his essay,and you would not know that. So it seems to me you are throwing in an arbitrary line of distinction as to whether a college consultant helps a child, versus an English teacher or school college advisor etc, ( and that list can go on and on), to me is just the same thing.The only distinction that should be made is that the applicant signs a statement that he/her wrote wrote his own essay, and that is as much as you can ask. If one lies then one lies, You will never know unless there is a huge discrepancy between their writing sample and their grades.
Clare Brinkley
You are going down a very slippery slope ( My husband is a Stanford Business School Graduate). I read a lot of school newspapers and stumbled upon your article. For full disclosure, I have 2 seniors applying to colleges this year, neither are applying to Stanford). Let’s take this all the way down that slope and list some ideas that would make it an equal playing field.1) If you want it to be a totally democratic system then You should rule out any one applying form a private institution , since they are already at an advantage with a stronger educational background than an applicant from public school.Private schools offer more individual attention. 2) Why not just cancel the SAT and ACT requirement since that just really tests the skills of how to take a test, and if you Pay for a class to prep for this test, then again you have an advantage. You certainly allow for all of those SAT Prep courses to advertise in your paper.So why not just do away with it since it favors students with parents who can afford to pay for this coaching and prep study. 3) Why not just instead have the application written in a test environment where you give an essay disclosed at the time of the test, under watchful supervision,and the students write their essay right there, no advantage ( Level playing field, no one seemingly has an advantage. WHy do I say this ridiculous statement? That is because, how can you distinguish between an applicant who has a teacher help him/her write and essay , a very intelligent uncle or older sibling etc. Everybody bounces their ideas or topic choice off a variety of people in hopes of delivering their best product. Are they then cheating?? I read an article on the cover of a NY Times 2 years ago that a public school in Paterson N. J. ( a very poor school district) offered summer courses, for free of course, on how to write your essay and complete your application. Is that Cheating???
So in conclusion, because I could go on and on, your article annoyed me because all kids,no matter their background, social/economic, is looking for an advantage or help on their application. If that kid is getting recruited for sports, thats his edge, DO they play Lacrosse at inner city schools, and yet you offer scholarships for that, or the brainiac who wants to study Bio Physics, who might not have the best writing skills asks for a friend to proof read and advise on his essay,and you would not know that. So it seems to me you are throwing in an arbitrary line of distinction as to whether a college consultant helps a child, versus an English teacher or school college advisor etc, ( and that list can go on and on), to me is just the same thing.The only distinction that should be made is that the applicant signs a statement that he/her wrote wrote his own essay, and that is as much as you can ask. If one lies then one lies, You will never know unless there is a huge discrepancy between their writing sample and their grades.
Doretta Katzter Goldberg, President College Directions, LLC
That colleges hire PR agencies and marketing consultants to help them refine their “pitch” towards prospective students is clear to those of us who spend a good amount of our time on college tours. It is remarkable how often the admissions presentations sound almost eerily alike. If we accept the position being considered by Stanford, it’s OK for colleges to get professional help in attracting candidates, for the College Board to market their tests in ways that are more helpful to their bottom line than to the interests of the students, but 17 year olds should be expected to go it alone in the midst of this slick business environment. For those who would say they have the assistance of their guidance counselors, I would respectfully disagree. While there are many dedicated and competent professionals in both public and private education, the majority of my clients come to me because they feel they are getting either inadequate assistance at school or sometimes virtually none at all. I’ve only been at this for six years and I’m certainly not getting rich doing it. I persevere despite all this inane criticism because I know how many lives I’ve truly changed. I do this not by helping people “cheat” but primarily by providing information, guiding students toward intelligent choices and suggesting how they might best spend their time in high school so that they know themselves better when it comes time to identifying those schools that are their best match. Those who think I’m involved in some major scam can (to use a more polite substitute for what I’d say if I was not on the internet)…stick it. I am as nauseated as anyone by the few bad apples in the educational consulting profession, but their business practices should be old and tired news to anyone who is really paying attention to what is going on this field. I have no reason to apologize for the way I spend my time, nor do my clients for making the decision to enlist my assistance.
Jonathan M. Eisenberg
Folks,
First of all, here’s my disclosure: I didn’t use any professional help — or any help at all, even typing — in doing the parts of my college applications that were supposed to be my own work. (I didn’t write my letters of recommendation; my high-school teachers did that work.) I went to a 2,000+-student public high school with, as I remember, two career guidance counselors, neither of whom knew much of anything about elite colleges, much less filled out kids’ college application papers. I never worked for a college admissions office. And I have never worked for any college admissions consulting company. I have no financial interest in this business industry. I am speaking out about the Hernandez company and its ilk out of a simple concern with fairness in elite college admissions.
Ms. Griesemer: my earlier comment wasn’t meant to be a reply to Mr. Sklarow’s comment. But I did read his comment. In fact, I’d already read the code of ethics of the IECA before ever seeing Mr. Sklarow’s comment. That code of ethics covers some frankly obvious topics. E.g., college admissions consultants should not give money to college admissions officers to admit certain students to the colleges. But, to the best of my memory, not having the code of ethics in front of me now, the code of ethics is silent about whether students who pay for professional help in doing their college applications should reveal (or be advised to reveal) the fact of the help to the colleges applied to. Hence the code of ethics is silent about what is probably the thorniest ethical issue of this business industry. Meanwhile, I haven’t read the other ethics codes (and probably should do so). Or somebody could just (please) fill me (and readers here) in on what the other ethics codes say on the issue under discussion.
Also, I’m not condemning people who give high schoolers advice about what certain colleges are really like culturally, etc. I’m condemning people who write other people’s college application forms and essays. You are misconstruing what I’ve said if you think or assert otherwise.
Dr. Skarlis: I can’t tell if you are calling me a hypocrite or the universities hypocrites. If you are putting down me, I’ll respond that I’m not a hypocrite and you don’t have even a speck of anything that shows otherwise. In any event, your assertions about colleges’ sophisticated marketing machines are off-point. The issue is whether some high school students (really, their parents) are paying for special help in getting admitted to colleges. You haven’t addressed that issue.
Regarding the so-called slippery slope, I’ve never said that a college admissions system can be designed that is perfectly fair to everyone. And I don’t think that my disclosure proposal’s failure to be the cure-all for inequality in the world means that my proposal is bad. Of course some students — usually, the ones whose parents are rich — have undeserved advantages over other students in gaining admission to elite colleges. That overarching fact cannot reasonably be cited as grounds for asserting that there is something wrong with trying to make one part of the admissions process more fair. Take on my proposal on its merits, please.
Ms. Goldberg: first of all, please don’t tell me to “stick it.” Your comment is rude and doesn’t advance the dialogue. Yes, the Hernandez company has gotten a lot of media attention, but, as far as I know, colleges haven’t done anything to stop the Hernandez company from what I and many other people see as corrupting college admissions processes. Indeed, the Hernandez company is openly advertising in elite college alumni magazines. Hence I think it’s necessary to raise the issue again, directly with colleges, specifically my alma mater. Give me a good reason why I shouldn’t raise this issue now.
Finally, I’ll issue a challenge to all you college admissions consultants out there. Publicly reveal exactly how you pick your clients and precisely what you do for your clients, and also publish your clients’ names and which colleges they have applied to. (I don’t see how any of you can claim legitimate legal rights of privacy on behalf of your clients.) Also, go on the record with your positions about whether your clients should reveal (or be required to reveal) to their prospective colleges that they (the clients) have used your services. If you have no reason to apologize for your line of work, then you should have no fear of being open about what you do and who you work for.
Jonathan Eisenberg
P.S. The Yalie quote that I repeated in my first comment was really from that person’s parents.
Rebecca Grappo
I will be happy to tell you how I choose my clients. They choose me because I have a reputation for bringing out their personal best and valuing each one of them as an individual who has potential and gifts to share with the world.
I have all kinds of kids in my practice – some who are aspiring to top schools, some who are average and need to have realistic choices, some who have learning disabilities, some who are recovering from some kind of crisis during their teen years and need a second chance, and some are international students who have had no college counseling in their schools whatsoever. My goal is to help them think of options they may have never thought of, explore who they are and what kind of learning environment would suit them best, think about opportunities during college they may not have thought of before, and brainstorm ideas for writing their essays. The application part of the process is the least of what I do.
There are times when I have kids with over-inflated views of themselves or unrealistic expectations – or their parents do. They might have a school like Stanford on their initial dream list. And as the educational consultant, I’m the one saying they should consider other options that might be a better fit. Because I travel constantly visiting colleges and campuses (I’m writing from an airport now), I know of many wonderful institutions that can transform lives. Those are the recommendations I make.
Occasionally I have a superstar student who never considered Stanford and I will encourage them to take a closer look. I can recognize talent and point them in the right direction. I had one such studnet this year, and despite my encouragement, she did not apply. That’s too bad – she might have added a lot to Stanford’s student body.
When it comes to essay writing, I have kids dig deep into their souls to tell their story. I have taught writing and love to see the light come on in a student’s eyes when they gain an insight into who they are because they have had someone help them think of their lives in new ways. I teach writing. I don’t write essays.
I’d like to suggest something else. When I do secondary school admissions, I have great relationships with admissions officers at all kinds of schools. In those applications, I very often contact the admissions offices to have a conversation about a student’s potential application. Because they know me so well, they trust my judgment and know that I’m usually on target about the right fit and match for a kid. It would be great to have that kind of relationship with more colleges. To be sure, there are some colleges that welcome phone calls and interactions with independent consultants, too – they know that we can direct students who might be the right fit to their campuses when the students and families might otherwise not know about the school at all.
Thus, I would be proud to say I worked with a student on the application if it meant that the college admissions office valued my work as a professional.
I will never reveal any student names. Students have a right to privacy, even if its not the law.
And oh by the way, my own husband is a graduate of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business and we continue to support the institution out of gratitude for the educational experience it offered him. We care about Stanford as an institution, too.
Respectfully,
Rebecca Grappo
RNG International Educational Consultants, LLC
http://www.rebeccagrappo.com
Dr. Dean Skarlis
Mr. Eisenberg: My post was not addressing you. It was directed at the colleges themselves. Because Stanford is reviewing their application to ask whether students received outside help, I felt the need to address them, and many other schools who believe that independent counselors are problematic.
In terms of disclosing my clients list: I cannot. My clients and me all signed an agreement that, in part, says that all information we discuss is confidential.
My assertion is far from off topic as you suggest. Rather, it’s another example of colleges messaging: “Do as we say; not as we do.” When colleges cease treating 17 year olds as “leads” rather than students, then I will change my position…I’m waiting.
As for your putative “challenge:” As admissions consultants, we don’t “pick” our students. They choose to work with us. And for the record, only a small portion (less than 5%) of my clients attend selective schools. In fact, more than 30% of my clients qualify for need based financial aid…So the notion that my clients are wealthy is completely wrong. In fact, many of my students go to schools you’ve never heard of: Belmont Abbey College (NC); Western New England College (MA); Cazenovia College (NY). I could on. Why do you think that is? Because I, and most of colleagues, focus on finding a college that’s the best fit for the student – nothing more; nothing less. Does that surprise you? In a nutshell, THAT is what we do. You can choose to believe it or not, but it is fact.
Jonathan M. Eisenberg
Dr. Skarlis,
Thanks for responding to my message.
I’m sure that you *choose* to work with your clients on a confidential basis. Nobody has forced you to make confidentiality agreements with your clients. Why do you do so?
Having about 30 percent of your students be ones who qualify for financial aid at private colleges is not, to me, an impressive statistic, at least in the way that you imply. Your assertion of course means that about 70 percent of your students do *not* qualify for financial aid. Far, far more than about 30 percent of high school students would qualify for some form of financial aid at private colleges. Your client base is primarily upper-middle class and upper class, by your own admission. Hence even if the so-called college “leads” system exists and is a bad thing, you are protecting mostly already privileged kids from this system. Other kids are on their own, apparently. My main point stands unrebutted.
Regarding whether your clients go to “prestigious” schools or not, and whether you do more than “good-fit” matching of kids and schools, I guess I’m inclined to believe your assertions. But unless you make real disclosures, I am going just on belief, not facts, which you have in your possession but are deliberately withholding.
Jonathan
Nancy Gore Marcus
As a graduate of the STEP program in 1968, a parent of two Stanford grads (one a Stanford Daily Editor), and an independent counselor, I would like to weigh in on the discussion. In 1999, The Stanford Alumni Magazine published the linked article discussing the kind of service that I and Helen Britt, the former counselor at the Branson School, offered.
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1999/novdec/articles/consulting.html
I do not charge exorbitant fees; I am careful to keep my advice and guidance to exactly that, advice and guidance. Much of the guidance I provide answers questions about course selection, addresses colleges appropriate for specific students, suggests summer options like volunteering for The First Tee or exploring an engineering program, and often mediates between student and parent dynamics. In fact my relationship with my students encourages independence and prevents helicopter parents from becoming overly involved in not only their children’s college selection but also their applications.
Like most of my colleagues, I participate in pro bono services through a variety of organizations. Adolescents navigate choppy emotional waters, and having an impartial guide can help the voyage be more successful.
Hiring a private counselor is much more affordable than paying for expensive, private day or boarding schools which usually provide extensive counseling, essay help during English class, and even test preparation. Should admissions points be subtracted from these applicants? Are these advantages exempt from your criticism? Yes, a few consultants embarrass those of us who provide a valuable and ethical service. However, to paint all counselors with the same brush does a significant disservice to most and oversimplifies the issues.
Nancy Gore Marcus, M.A.Ed., 1968
Alan Haas
Jonathan,
I love this discussion, and I appreciate the spark that you have provided. I also respect the civilized manner in which you are responding to comments. I only want to make two points.
1. You seem to be preoccupied with the notion that independent consultants (such as I) should disclose our client list. This would be unethical, just as doctors, psychiatrists, investment managers and many other professions do not disclose. In any case, what is the point? Ethical college consultants do not ‘get students in’ to college. This disclaimer is apparent in the Professional Practices of the IECA and this is constantly reinforced.
2. Let’s look at this objectively: helping students make the right match would seem to benefit everyone and should be encouraged. Colleges count on public school guidance counselors, private school college advisors and independent educational consultants to help students make realistic choices. All of these professionals are paid.
3. OK, one more. I fully agree with you that exploitation of parents’ paranoia about the college process is disgraceful. I wonder where this comes from?
Alan Haas, CEP, President, Educational Futures
Alan Haas, President, Educational Futures, New Canaan, CT.
Jonathan M. Eisenberg
Alan,
Thanks for your message.
My preoccupation is making sure that college admissions officers at least know which applicants are using “professional” help on the applications, and what type of help is being given, because the applications are supposed to represent the applicant’s work only. Accordingly, I do believe that it’s dishonest for a student to submit a college application that is supposed to be the student’s own work, and to represent expressly or implicitly that the papers are the student’s own work, when somebody like Michele Hernandez has, apparently, secretly spent hours editing multiple drafts of the student’s “personal” essays via e-mail, as the Hernandez company website proclaims does happen. Indeed, I don’t see how anybody can rationally dispute that point.
There is a related issue of equity and even efficiency in lay-person-economics-speak. Kids with wealthy parents can more easily get this kind of professional college applications help; kids with less-wealthy parents are often on their own. To the extent that (a) elite college educations are valuable and (b) elite college admissions offices do get duped by the admissions consulting pros, the admissions consulting business industry is perpetuating the undeserved advantages that kids with affluent parents already have, and is taking opportunities away from other, talented kids who deserve the best educational opportunties and likely could make great or greater contributions to society if given top-flight educations. The latter part of this whole situation is tragic.
I disagree that college admissions counselors have the same kinds of confidentiality obligations to their customers as attorneys do to their law clients, medical doctors do their patients, clergy to their penitents, etc. The confidentiality in each of the other kinds of relationships is well-grounded in sound public policy. I don’t see the social benefits of college admissions counselors keeping confidential the identities of students being helped with the college admissions process — regardless of whether the counselors are actually, causally getting clients admitted to chosen colleges or just providing some lesser boost. Nobody has given me a good argument for confidentiality in this context. Meanwhile, the benefits of openness and disclosure are pretty clear.
Where does parents’ paranoia over elite college admissions come from? Many sources, of course, likely including some colleges themselves (your unstated point?). But I certainly don’t think that it helps to ease this anxiety for parents or high schoolers to know that, according to some reports, one in four college-bound high schoolers are getting paid professional help to get into good colleges.
Finally, I want to note that none of you college admissions consultants responded to my request for info about how you pick your clients by stating that you focus on high schools with large percentages of ethnic minority students and/or low-income students, and/or advertise/offer your services to financially needy students for free or at steep discounts. I hope that, at least, you do these things and just didn’t say so.
Jonathan
Jonathan M. Eisenberg
Harvard’s alumni magazine has an online edition. There is a classified section in the online edition of the magazine. In the classified section sub-section called “Education,” there is presently the following ad:
“HarvardMassEd.com helps finesse your son’s or daughter’s college application essay for best results.”
Jonathan M. Eisenberg
I think that the series of postings here has, somewhat ironically, become an advertising opportunity for some of the many college admissions consulting companies out there. Still, there is another such company that deserves mention, I think.
In the current issue of the Stanford alumni magazine, there is in the classified ads section a listing by a “[f]ormer Stanford undergraduate admissions director” who “provides college preparation and application guidance to high school students nationwide.” This person claims to be a Stanford grad, class of 1985, as well. The Internet site for the company says that the company offers the following services:
“[1] Essay topic brainstorming. [2] Review and edit multiple drafts of essays and provide detailed feedback that improves both the quality of the writing and how well they capture your personality.”
Another part of the website has a question: “Who better to help you with your applications than a former Stanford admissions director?” There is even a picture of Hoover Tower displayed at the site.