Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Admissions: Worse Than Ever

July 11, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Our younger child just finished the college admissions sweepstakes. He got into one of his top choice schools, but he says he feels more unburdened than proud. Now he can get on with his life, enjoying the things he loves to do. He no longer has to worry about marketing his “admissions package,” as if he were the latest toothpaste or laundry detergent. 

Our family last went through the admissions experience eight years ago when our older child applied to college. Although he ended up at one of the “hot” Ivy League universities, we sadly concluded that the selective college admissions process had no redeeming social value. You just lived through it, hoped your child survived unscathed, and prepared to hand over your bank account.  

Unfortunately, it has gotten worse since then. More than ever, higher education seems like a commodity, as selective colleges market themselves shamelessly, increase applicant demand, and manage enrollments as if they were commercial enterprises. And, in response, an industry of expensive services and consultants to teach applicants how to game the admissions system is booming. Uncalculated is the toll on students, integrity and fundamental fairness.

This time around, college planning started just before ninth grade, when the college counselor at our son’s school met with parents and students to advise on the importance of course selection over the next four years. The message was to take diverse and challenging courses if you hope to get into a selective college -- loosely defined as the top 50 colleges and universities in the U.S. News & World Report annual survey. No big deal: Anyone who is interested in a rigorous liberal arts education for their child would probably take this advice anyway.  

Then came 10th grade’s pre-pre-college admissions testing regimen: the PSAT, given by the College Board, and the PLAN, from ACT Inc.  This was to get students ready to take the same tests again in 11th grade, to get them ready to take the tests that count big time in college admissions, the SAT and ACT.  Although originally devised as alternatives, counselors now tell students to take both the SAT and the ACT and submit the score of the one they do best on. These tests are in addition to at least three SAT II  “achievement” tests and, of course, a battery of Advanced Placement exams for those rigorous courses they are counseled to take. Pile on top of these the now de rigueur SAT and ACT review courses -- at, not incidentally, anywhere from $700 to $3,000 a pop.  

Our son, a motivated student with top grades and a challenging academic program, is a very good, but not spectacular, standardized test-taker. Friends with children at other schools told us that kids had to have 1500 SAT’s to be in the admissions hunt at top-echelon colleges. Looking at the median test scores published by colleges and information services all over the Internet, this notion did not seem completely off-base. But even if it meant going to a lesser member of the “nifty 50” group of colleges, our son eschewed review courses on the grounds that he already had a heavy schedule and would rather read some good books than spend hours taking boring SAT or ACT prep classes. Obviously, we had done something right in his education, but we were definitely out of the mainstream.  

He opted not to take the SAT at all, and ended up scoring in the 99th percentile on the ACT after doing some test prep at home on his own. This he was proud of, because, as he said, he isn’t a wiz at standardized tests, and he didn’t take an expensive prep course. I suppose it was a kind of reverse snobbery (“anyone can do well if they take a prep course, but I did it on my own”) and a real sign of the times in the selective college admissions world.  

Fate was cruel to him in other ways. The night before the first AP exam in his junior year, he developed golf-ball-sized lymph nodes all over his neck and groin that looked suspiciously like lymphoma. It took four days to determine that he had mono, not cancer. This scare did put the whole college admissions lunacy in perspective for us.  

On the other hand, our son endured AP and SAT II exams while suffering from mono. Now he had a new dilemma. Does he tell colleges he took the exams while sick? Does he take tests over in the fall?  No matter how well he did, would he have done better if he had not had mono? In the end, he decided to accept fate. He did reasonably well on the tests, there were limits to how much of his life he was prepared to devote to getting into the “perfect” college, and he did not like making excuses, even good ones.

Our son’s college application experience was tame compared to children of a lot of upwardly mobile, well-educated, Baby Boom parents. For starters, the popularity of private “college consultants,” notwithstanding their ludicrous fees, took us by surprise. One family we know had a consultant on retainer from the time the child was in seventh grade. This was in addition to the cost of SAT prep courses and the professional editor for the college essay. The total bill for these services was more than $30,000.  

An acquaintance we bumped into at a wedding last summer informed us she had just opened a private college consulting business, having recently retired from her position as a highly successful college counselor at an elite prep school. She offers a four-year package for about $15,000, or the college-application-only option for the all-important senior year for about $5,000. Her phone was ringing off the hook. Could this possibly be worth the extraordinary expense?

More important, what message does it send to children about their worth and competence when we act as if the only way they can make it into a selective college is to hire high-priced help to package and market them? Is the admissions prize worth this psychological price? As bad, are we raising a generation of young cynics?

Looking for Help

A quick Internet search revealed no shortage of expensive, fear-mongering consultants to guide students and their families through what they imply is the mine field of selective college admissions.  After reading these sites, we wondered if a mere mortal could possibly fill out an application for an elite college, never mind actually get in. I went to Amazon.com and did a search for books on college admissions. The first book that turned up was A is for Admission; the Insider’s Guide to Getting into the Ivy League and Other Top Colleges (Warner Books, 1999), the controversial, tell-all exposé of selective college admissions by Michelle A. Hernandez. Hernandez is a former Ivy League admissions officer who now has -- you guessed it -- a college consulting business. I ordered the book and read it cover to cover.  

She confirmed what our older son had learned from an admissions office friend at his Ivy League university: You are lucky if an admissions reader devotes 15 minutes to the application your child labored over for months. It might even be more like 10 minutes. Hernandez also explained how, by calculating a so-called “academic index,” the selective college admissions office will reduce your child’s entire high school career to one number, weighted heavily in favor of standardized tests. The book had the ring of truth, not the least because it confirmed my by-now-cynical view of the selective college admissions process.  

Hernandez also instructed how to play the admissions game, with specific coaching like: play down economic advantages; play up work experience, especially hard manual labor; show long-term passion about a few things; choose teachers for recommendations who you know can write with style; and most importantly (was this tongue-in-cheek?) be yourself. Her follow-on volume, Acing the College  Application: How to Maximize Your Chances for Admission to the College of Your Choice, was prescriptive about how to fill out an application, including how to do the “brag sheet,” the list of activities and interests that is required in the Common Application  now used by most colleges.

Of course, her example of a brag sheet, taken from one of her clients, made the applicant sound like a combination of Albert Schweitzer and Steven Spielberg. If this was the competition, it was very discouraging. Her advice on college interviews was sensible and contained a list of common interview questions. (Spot on, according to our son, after having gone through six interviews.) You can retain Ms. Hernandez for what is undoubtedly thousands of dollars, or you can buy the books for a total of about $25. We chose the cheap alternative.  

One of the great eye-openers in the college admissions experience was the amount of disingenuousness involved in writing the college essay. Our son’s school spends a few weeks in English class early in the senior year working on crafting personal essays in order to prepare for college applications, so we naively assumed that students wrote their own college essays.

Not necessarily. As we spoke to parents in other places who had lived through the senior year with their children, we personally came to know of a father who wrote his daughter’s college essay, a father who had his son’s college essay written by an employee of the father’s business, and parents who hired professional editors or writers to “help” with the college essay. The worst part is that in every case, these children got into their first choice schools.  

We live in a small town in upstate New York and thought we were immune to what we viewed as these metro-area ethical challenges. Wrong again. The summer before our son’s senior year, we received a glossy brochure from a professional writer in our town. He has gone into the business of helping students to “find their voices” in the “all important” college essay, a service for which he charges the mere pittance of $1,500. Isn’t your child’s future worth it? There seems to be so much deception in college essay writing, I have come to the conclusion that essays should be eliminated from applications in favor of a personal essay question administered in a controlled environment by the College Board or  ACT and forwarded by them to colleges. Ironically, I never imagined I would find myself advocating for yet another college admissions test.  

The same family that spent more than $30,000 on college consultants claimed that the college counseling staff at their well-regarded country day school advised that if the family was of a charitable bent, the application year would be a good time to make a significant donation to their child’s first-choice college. The family said they pledged half a million. An old friend who has been on the faculty of an elite liberal arts college in New England for a quarter century confirmed that over the past five years it has become well known that a contribution of $500,000 to $1 million to a selective college can secure a spot in the class for a student who is academically qualified.

Since 90 percent of applicants to such colleges are academically qualified and most of them are not admitted, the wealthy who are prepared to be generous at the right time appear to be able to buy admission for their children. Off the record, some selective college administrators we know demur that you have to pledge to rebuild the library in order to influence an admissions decision. Whatever the price, the dirty little secret seems to be that admission is for sale in what sounds like a pretty straight-forward, if expensive, transaction.   

Toward the end of our son’s wait to hear from colleges, he had a nightmare that notification finally came but merely said, “No conclusion.” Did it mean he was consigned to college admissions purgatory forever? This was a fate worse than death. Happily, he awoke and was eventually admitted. Just as happily, we will never have to live through this experience again.

But we cannot help wondering if the selective college admissions process is losing integrity with every passing year. Reading thousands of applications at ten or fifteen minutes apiece, can admissions officers really see through anything but the most obvious and overblown applicant marketing? How can we believe their universal representation that each application is carefully reviewed? And what happens to families whose children go to schools with under-staffed and overburdened guidance offices and who cannot afford private college consultants, clever essay editors, test prep courses and mammoth charitable contributions?

These questions raise issues of fairness that go far beyond the current debates about affirmative action. Let’s hope the colleges are trying to answer them.  

Deirdre Henderson is a mother and lawyer who lives in upstate New York.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Admissions: Worse Than Ever

  • Cattle call
  • Posted by JMG , Oh, wah, boo hoo on July 11, 2005 at 8:49am EDT
  • My god, what a pile. If Junior was applying to private schools -- presumably he was -- then Mom might have noticed that they *are* commercial enterprises and nothing but. And if Junior was applying to state schools, then it is only her and parents like her who are responsible for the fact that they have decided to ape their "selective" private competitors.

    "Name" schools long ago figured out what perfume makers know, that in a world where there is no objective quality measurement, acting like a prima donna and being fabulously overpriced and "selective" works far better than anything else in terms of making the rich and the wanna-be-rich desire to attend.

    Don't go to Vegas and complain about showgirls. Don't join the lemmings on the path to a "good school" and complain that the path is crowded with lemmings.

  • The Kool Aid
  • Posted by Steve Wells on July 11, 2005 at 8:50am EDT
  • Since “Worse Than Ever” is highly personalized I can tell you the author and I are good friends. It appears to me that fortunately Deirdre only drank half a glass of the academic admissions Kool Aid. If one accepts a few simple rules it gets a lot easier.

    There is a terrific college out there that wants your child

    College admissions are not a meritocracy –if it was all Ivy colleges would be 100% oriental students.

    College admissions officers build classes for the college not the student. If the current quarterback is a sophomore and an all American this year and next– sorry QBs.

    Quite frankly the college admissions process was a positive experience for our family. We worked together forming goals, getting advice, visiting schools and doing all the other stuff that was needed over the last 3 years of high schools. Our family was able to use the process to help our son transform his relationship with his parents from on of child on parent to one of equality in an adult family.

    Yes there are lots of stupid parts of the college admissions process but you child can learn and grow in a positive way as well.

  • Cork the whine, please
  • Posted by Steve LaBonne on July 11, 2005 at 10:55am EDT
  • Is anybody else getting sick and tired of the growing deluge of poor-pitiful-me stories from the privileged upper middle classes? Get a life, people. And donate time and money to help those who ahve REAL problems.

  • Worse Than Ever
  • Posted by Anonymous Instructor , Instructo at CCC on July 11, 2005 at 10:55am EDT
  • That was too funny. I am always amazed at how the wealthy throw away their money. We have starving people in the streets, the homeless, the mentally ill, and the wealthy can only think about buying their child entry to the Ivy league schools. How about having your child help out at a soup kitchen? Or how about taking that $500K and buying an apartment building to house the homeless?

    The Ivy League schools are in a competitive match with lesser known schools and they know it. The online for-profit schools are gaining ground. The only feature that Ivy league schools offer that's worth paying for is their alumni, who are usually famous & rich and with a handshake can get the child into the best corporations as an intern or entry-level worker.

    If the trend keeps up the way the author described it, we will see our kids ship off to India and Canada for an education instead of the U.S.

  • Admissions: worse than ever
  • Posted by Jane Schoenfeld Shropshire , Educational Consultant at Shropshire Educational Consulting, LLC on July 11, 2005 at 10:55am EDT
  • I appreciate the sentiments voiced in the commentary about selective college admission and find myself nodding in agreement with much of what the author has written.

    However, as an educational consultant in private practice and current president of the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA), I take exception to the implication that independent college advisors are focused on "packaging" candidates while accepting enormous fees. Individuals whom the author cites are the exceptions, rather than the rule. The vast majority of those in our ranks are professionals who have chosen this path because they want to help students and families. We work to help students understand themselves and colleges' offerings, and identify which places best match their interests, talents and needs. For many within our ranks, annual income from fees is no greater than, and in many cases less than, the salaries typically paid to public and private school college counselors. (And as small
    "businesspeople," we must pay for our own benefits, including Social Security.) Most IECA members do pro bono and/or sliding scale work on a regular basis.

    Families seek the additional layer of advising offered by consultants because the process has, indeed, become more complex and the investment now required for four years of undergraduate tuition so much greater than in years past. They want a high level of individual attention, and they want to be sure that their son or daughter will move thoughtfully through the college search and application process.

    Has the selective college admission process has changed over the years? You bet. Are educational consultants working to add to the pressure? In general, I'd say just the reverse.

  • Oriental!?
  • Posted by Avery Milton on July 11, 2005 at 10:56am EDT
  • Steve,
    To assume that '100% oriental students' would dominate the classes of Ivy schools if they were operating a meritocracy is racist and just plain stupid. In your model, does access to resources play a role? I guess not because it's all genetics. A student's ethnic background contributes to how well they will do on a test!? Unfortunately, this is what stands out in an otherwise reasonable response.

  • Middle-class entitlement
  • Posted by jem , Visiting Instructor at Wake Forest University on July 11, 2005 at 10:56am EDT
  • Much of the author's criticism rings true--particularly her complaints about the overemphasis on standardized testing and the abusive industry of college-prep services that have grown up around them. And yet, her cynicism and outrage are belied by the fact that her son GOT IN to a very good school! As do most qualified, hard-working students who have the grades to even bother applying to college. Her complaint, though, seems to echo that of many of the students I've worked with (at two different "nifty 50" universities): that despite all their maneuvering and strategizing, they didn't get into their "first choice" program. Oh, the horror! To have to settle for ANOTHER elite education than the one they had planned! As someone from a working-class background who attended a large, urban public school where very few students even went to college, I have a hard time sympathizing with this middle-class sense of entitlement. The message seems to be: "Not only do our children deserve an elite education, they deserve the college of their choice." This, despite the fact that their pride in this education rests precisely upon the schools' "selectivity" (notice, she only considers those schools that are arbitrarily ranked by the very same standards that she complains her children are being measured against). What's wrong with the local state university, or that small liberal arts college down the street that didn't make the "nifty 50"? Did those students work any less hard to make it through the admissions process? Is their education worth less because they didn't score a 1500 on the SAT? The promise of the college prep services is simple: "you get what you pay for." This is the myth that leads to such an absurd stampede of middle-class kids towards the gates of a handful of elite universities that couldn't possibly accommodate them all. The reality is that you get what you work for in college, no matter where that happens to be. If you have to work a little harder to beat out that Harvard grad for a job, so be it--that's the way the world works. I doubt your children will be unemployed after graduating from their third or fourth choice college. You can choose to play into the college-prep nonsense, or, as this young man apparently did, play it cool and trust in your true abilities and interests to take you where you need to be. I doubt he would have done any "better" by paying to play...

  • the college "game"
  • Posted by Jill Burstein at Jill ?Burstein Educational Consulting,Inc on July 11, 2005 at 10:56am EDT
  • I am one of those "dreaded" educational consultants who is not anything like the consultants mentioned in the article. Most of us are very honest, hardworking professionals that do not gouge families or enter into the "admission sweepstakes" that the author describes. We look deeply into who our clients are and try and find the best match for those students. There are so many colleges in the world and usually families only know of the ones that win NCAA sport titles or make the top ranked schools of US New and World Report.

  • is this the trend?
  • Posted by dorothy on July 11, 2005 at 10:56am EDT
  • Am I the only one who sees a connection between these comments on applicants who buy their admissions essays and Terry Caesar's piece on plagiarism?

  • The most important thing
  • Posted by Chuck Pearson on July 11, 2005 at 11:35am EDT
  • Steve Wells hit the nail on the head with this one point:

    There is a terrific college out there that wants your child.

    Of course everybody would like for that terrific college to be one of the Ivies or some other super-high-rep school, so they can feel like the whole effort has the really massive payoff. (I wanted MIT at that age so bad.) But it won't be. And, for 99% of the population, that will be a good thing, because the super-high-rep school won't be the school that fits best with the students' personality.

    If you ever have a chance to read Jay Mathews' writings for the Washington Post, he seems to come back to this point time and again, and it's worth repeating: the more competition there is at the super-high-rep schools, the more quality there is that doesn't get in to those schools. That quality has to go somewhere. It will land at second-tier schools, and raise their own quality. Competition at that highest level benefits everybody, at the end of the day.

    I wish the admissions process was more transparent and more confidence-inducing, instead of soul-destroying (especially as I'm not too far away from having to go through that process myself for my own daughters), but I join with the chorus that says, with the right preparation, it can be played into a net positive.

  • "Oriental"???
  • Posted by Anonymous on July 11, 2005 at 11:58am EDT
  • The word "Oriental" refers to an object, such as a rug or a vase, not to an individual. Individuals are properly referred to as "Asian" if one wishes to emphasize the racial identity of the person in question.

    I'm offended not only by the racist nature of the comment, but by the use of racist language. (And for the record, I'm not a member of a minority group, and I'm not easily offended.)

    Folks, let's try to think before we write.

    Thanks.

  • Posted by Anonyous on July 11, 2005 at 1:05pm EDT
  • I love how parents look at the US News & World Report as the "Bible" of what constitutes a good college. Here's a newsflash for ya: "It's not worht the paper it's printed on!" When are people going to realize this.
    Here's a though, send your kid to the college they want to go to that fits them the best.

  • Self-inflicted Wounds
  • Posted by Retired Professor on July 11, 2005 at 6:05pm EDT
  • I have about as much sympathy for Deirdre Henderson as I have for someone whose Lexus cup holder won't accomodate her favorite Starbucks cup.

    It's the rich who perpetuate the myth that their kids are somehow failures if they don't get into a 'Top 50' college or university, and it's the rich who've generated the parasitic industry that surrounds college admissions preparation.

    I say 'the rich,' because nobody I know has the kind of money needed for such ghost-writing, 'guidance,' test preparation, etc. I should add that few people I know of believe it's needed.

    What if your kid went to Reed, Oberlin, Kenyon, Williams or a similar school, instead of to Harvard or Yale? He or she would learn something, that's what; and he or she would not be taught by TA's or by adjuncts (who may be excellent teachers but can't afford to be around when you need them after hours).

    'Anonymous' is right: The US News & World Report ratings aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Try the Princeton Review instead, for example, and do some research yourself. It's never been easier.

    And please quit whining: your kid got into the school of his choice.

    Retired Professor

  • Posted by annonymous on July 11, 2005 at 6:05pm EDT
  • For all those upset about the future of college admissions, not to worry. The problem is most likely demographics. Once the boomers' boomlet is through the door, college admission numbers will go down again, the colleges will be less competative, and college prep counselors will have to rely on their 401Ks.

    This is not to denigrate the worries of current parents. What I always wonder about is the antagonistic opinions espoused by people with a direct concern and those with a theoretical concern. When you have a live child whose future is now and whom you love more than yourself, you want the best for them, whether you are high, middle or lower class, whatever the 'best' means to you. Let's not get too self righteous with our class warfare. The poor sacrifice what they can for their children, as do any other class members. The 'middle class' is notoriously squeezed these days, so no wonder they are concerned. Just because a parent has earned a degree of comfort is no guarantee their children will.

    Eight years ago our first child was devastated by being rejected at her first choice and I was devasted when she wasn't accepted at my alma mater. However, we both learned to be thankful for not getting what we want as her college career at a small, wonderful Midwest college was perfect for her. She will graduate from Veterinary school next year with all the potential for economic and personal success, enough to make any parent breath easier. We are now going into the senior high school year with our third child, and, dispite this being a huge 'bulge' year for applicants, as veterans we are much more laid back, with our egos in check. Given a little perspecive, this could actually be fun.

  • Stupid is, as stupid does
  • Posted by Art on July 11, 2005 at 6:39pm EDT
  • ".. we personally came to know of a father who wrote his daughter’s college essay, a father who had his son’s college essay written by an employee of the father’s business, and parents who hired professional editors or writers to “help” with the college essay."

    As a professional writer and out-of-state "Public Ivy" grad, I'd note that these folks are merely postponing the inevitable moment of truth. That's when the recruiter/boss/whoever tells little Branden or Molly, "write this up" -- and they're caught and disciplined. Not pretty. Not fun. Embarassing. Expensive for the kid. Life goes on.

  • Asian/Oriental comment
  • Posted by hype degree on July 11, 2005 at 6:40pm EDT
  • hey anonymous, Edward Said was an individual who got famous calling himself an "Oriental." Steve's comment was idiotic, but to nitpick with the lexeme is inane.

  • Posted by anonymous on July 11, 2005 at 11:28pm EDT
  • I find it humorous that though Ms. Henderson blames "admissions offices" for her "problems" (and i use that term loosely) a quick glance at her essay reveals a variety of other sources. Perhaps if Ms. Henderson had relied on sources other than US News&World Report, "the father of a friend" and a woman pitching thousand dollar consulting services, her view would have been different.

    I will however, sleep better at night knowing that her child got into a "hot" school. (Thank goodness the station wagon will not be defamed by having a sticker from a non "name" school!) Now Ms. Henderson can happily go on to be overinvolved (ur..i mean involved) in her son's life. Now would be a good time to find the "hot" pre-schools for your future grandkids.

  • Posted by Deirdre Henderson on July 11, 2005 at 11:28pm EDT
  • Jem: You are engaging in the sophistry of setting up a straw man, then attacking it. My son applied to five schools that fit his preferences for size, geography, emphasis on undergraduate teaching and academic and athletic interests. Any one of these schools would have pleased him (and us). So much for alleged “middle-class entitlement to first choice schools,” a concept irrelevant to the thrust of my article.

    We managed to keep the admissions process within a reasonable and honest frame despite the commercialism and frenzy all around us. In the current environment, it takes great effort to maintain this balance. Somehow, I feel balance should be the norm, not the outlier. Spending four years of high school sculpting a college admissions profile does not an education make.

    There is certainly enough blame to go around in the college admissions situation, but the primary responsibility rests, in my view, with the colleges, not with parents (who are, of course, always the easy targets). The colleges almost all—including public universities-- cooperate with the magazine rankings (even in some cases to the extent of manipulating information) and often tout the rankings in their marketing materials as if the rankings actually mean something; they stuff our mailboxes with expensive, glossy brochures and seemingly personalized letters inviting our interest so they can increase application numbers and apparent selectivity; they are the members of the College Board; they spend millions on enrollment management and marketing consultants; they continue to use “early decision and early action;” some of them buy students with “merit aid.” Parents and students are trying to navigate a system that is anything but transparent, impossible to understand or predict, and not of their making. I am sure there are many people within the higher education community who understand what is happening and would like to see it change. However, there seems generally to be an absence of leadership from the academy.
    Please note: The U.S. News & World Report rankings are not my idea of how to view colleges, but, like it or not, they are the shorthand that is widely used in the college counseling and admissions world. Sadly, some secondary schools will even point to their acceptances to this group of schools as evidence of their own institutional quality! For the record, I think these suspect rankings are worthless in gauging the quality of undergraduate colleges, never mind suitability for a particular student.

    Retired Professor: Perhaps you have been retired so long you do not know that getting in to the colleges you name is very competitive. If you think the problem is limited to Ivy League admissions, you are quite out of date. If you think that the college admissions industry is maintained only by the rich, you are also out of date. Take a look at the phenomenal growth of the test prep industry. It is not just the richest 2% of the country fueling this expansion. There is a continuum of services, some of the most egregious examples of which I mentioned in my article, that are aimed at helping families, many of them very middle-class, respond to the admissions/recruiting/marketing practices of colleges touched on above. While I do not like these services, I understand why they exist and why families use them.

    For the record, I do not drive a Lexus, and I make my own coffee. I came from a modest background, and (thanks to Sputnik and James Bryant Conant) I am the first person in my family to have graduated from college. Please do not play the class warfare card with me.

  • I Hear You
  • Posted by K. York on July 12, 2005 at 8:43am EDT
  • I feel a kinship to Mrs. Henderson, perhaps because our family just went through the college application process with our daughter this past year. I understand Mrs. Henderson's complaints. Like the Hendersons, we also opted for the simple and inexpensive route of purchasing SAT and ACT study guides and several books written by former admissions officers explaining what they looked for in essays and such. We could have gone the other route—taking prep courses and retaining college application specialists—but we stubbornly resisted this route. I say “stubbornly resisted” because there is enormous pressure to invest in these expensive resources as everyone else seems to be doing it. At some point early on in the process, we decided that our daughter would do it with her own unembellished record and her own unvarnished talent. Fortunately, our daughter is an extremely capable individual and, for the most part, her efforts paid off in the college decisions. She was rejected by two schools, one Ivy League and one Ivy equivalent, but accepted by four very good schools. Will her future career opportunities be limited by not having attended one of the schools to which she was rejected? I rather doubt it, because it will be her innate gifts and her own continued efforts, not her school, that define her opportunities.

  • It's the beef -- not the sizzle
  • Posted by Art on July 12, 2005 at 12:01pm EDT
  • "Will her future career opportunities be limited by not having attended one of the schools to which she was rejected? I rather doubt it, because it will be her innate gifts and her own continued efforts, not her school, that define her opportunities."

    IMHO, absolutely correct. Consider the studies that have shown, Ivy educations have had no significant difference on one's lifelong success. In a world filled with Bush'ed/Gore'd/Clinton'ed activity -- making it, on one's own principled efforts was never more important, IMHO.

    I once volunteer-coached a friend's medical application, hoping for Duke. When the letter from Harvard arrived, it was one of the proudest moments of my life. Five years in an NGO can be impressive. Time-on-task is hard to fake.

  • Class is not a straw issue
  • Posted by jem on July 12, 2005 at 6:01pm EDT
  • I don't believe that there's anything straw about the "class card," because it's class sensibility that creates both the expectations and the abuses. The schools and the prep services play to the anxiety of middle-class parents who "want the best for their children." The best, of course, means those with the highest rankings, the most prestigious names, and subsequently, the highest price tags (if you've swallowed the sales pitches). If you're willing to pay the $30,000 a year tuition for these schools, then surely you'll invest comparable amounts to get them into the school in the first place. "You get what you pay for"--not necessarily what you've earned, what fits you best, what you need, or what's available to everyone else. These schools are "exclusive" as much, if not moreso, because of the cost of all this preparation as because of the innate quality of the programs or the students (as if an SAT score of 1500 marked a qualitatively "better student" than one with a 1000--almost every educator will tell you different).

    The fact that all of this is only available to those able and willing to pay makes it a class issue. And the fact that middle- and upper-class parents aren't willing to settle for "lesser" schools is a slap in the face to those who have no choice. These same parents and students will decry the use of affirmative action, because it limits the number of spots that "rightfully" belong to them--no matter that many of the students who benefit from affirmative action faced the same (no, worse) obstacles to college preparation than they did.

    The gist of the article above is that students and parents shouldn't be put through this gauntlet--and I agree, they shouldn't. But then, they don't have to be--they can choose not to buy the hype or participate in the stampede. Those students who have anything like acceptable college credentials WILL get into a college, they will get a good education, and they will have successful careers afterwards. Sadly, many will be left unsatisfied with these accomplishments because they failed to "win the lottery" that is the measure of middle-class success. I don't know how many students have sat in my office hours, sadly reiterating how they "really" wanted to go to Stanford or Yale (and too often, how they were cheated out of the opportunity), but "settled" for their current school--a tragic reflection of their, and their parents', expectations and prejudices...and admittedly, those of our culture.

  • CSM series on this top
  • Posted by Bob on July 12, 2005 at 10:42pm EDT
  • Fun stuff ..

    http://csmonitor.com/2002/1210/p15s02-lehl.html

  • Deirdre's on the mark
  • Posted by Steve , College Counselor on July 13, 2005 at 3:19pm EDT
  • With the abuse that Dierdre Henderson is taking, I felt compelled to write in support of her position. College counselors around the country, on both sides of the desk, and at both public and private institutions, have been decrying the very trends that she discusses. If respondents are not familiar with the Education Conservancy, which raises points identical with Ms. Henderson's, they should be. Thanks to astute marketing efforts, the world of admissions preys upon one of the oldest forms of human weakness--vanity. And while the rich may be especially susceptible to vanity, few from any social class are immune to it.

  • Well-said, Steve
  • Posted by Homer on July 13, 2005 at 6:35pm EDT
  • "Thanks to astute marketing efforts, the world of admissions preys upon one of the oldest forms of human weakness—vanity."

    How many times, does one see parents pushing a child, in directions that the kid doesn't want to go, before one finds the words "Yo -- it's about her - not you." Looking back, I think my friends and I partied so much, to forget all the misery we went through.

  • Good Article Deirdre
  • Posted by Mike on July 13, 2005 at 7:30pm EDT
  • Good article and well written Deirdre.

    I thank God I knew nothing about the admissions game till after my son was admitted to William and Mary.(Perhaps not a "hot" school, but tough for someone out of state to get into from what I have recently read.) We didn't know any of this was going on until I started searching the internet for college discussions to put together lists of things for him to take to college. I would like to think our reactions would have been about like those of your family if we had known, but I can see the pressure to play the game. My son's picks, based upon his interests and what made him feel comfortable went from William and Mary to LSU on the U.S. News list. He would have probably been happy at any of them since we did not know that the current theory is that your success in life depends upon which school you go to. He just liked the size of W&M and the people he met there a little better than his other options.

    We foolishly still believe success depends upon you, and that success has little to do with making money. To have known the game and resisted, I'm betting your thoughts tend to that direction also.

  • Posted by Ed on July 14, 2005 at 5:59pm EDT
  • Too bad the PC brigade had the last word on proper usage. When I was growing up, "Oriental" was the respectful term for someone from east of the Ganges, while "Asian" was an adjective for an object. At some point in recent history (perhaps when spaghetti became pasta), self-appointed trend setters turned this pattern around. Would we condemn someone so vehemently for using "spaghetti" instead of "pasta"? Anyway, since no one questioned whether Steve's point had any merit, the writers of such criticism may have unwittingly proved Deirdre's point: in academia what matters nowadays is the packaging, not the content.

    And Steve's point is actually correct, even if you are unhappy with how he made it. The only objective component of the college admission is the standardized tests. The American ethnic group that consistently does best on these is "Asians". I suppose that could be a racist statement, but if so, then so is collecting "racial" data on test takers.

    Colleges do what is best for themselves, not what is best for current or prospective students. Sometimes, the two interests happen to coincide. At such times you can expect colleges to trumpet their devotion to their students. In politics, this is called a "two-fer".

    As Deirdre's article points out, after all the fanfare about their standards of excellence, every Ivy League school will happily sell admission spots to the highest bidder (current market rate: between one and one half mil). All of these schools employ some kind of return on investment model to determine what's in it for them in letting in certain students. According to another "Inside Higher Ed" article, there is a contentious debate about the validity of for-profit colleges. The reality is that colleges are already ruthlessly for profit, they just dislike admitting it. It might be refreshing to have colleges that at least are honest about their profit orientation.

    One final thought: one commenter advanced "five years in an NGO" as an incontrovertible sign of virtue. No one remarked on this. I wonder why not? In my experience, many NGOs are corrupt, venal, incompetent, hypocritical and self-interested (not unlike colleges, come to think of it). Perhaps it is the supposed idealism of their staff that gives NGOs the sainted aura. But then the question is why do we esteem idealism so highly? After all, the greatest idealist of this century is named Osama, and the greatest idealist of last century was named Adolph. Personally, I would always rather deal with an honest pragmatist than a wild-eyed idealist. But then I guess that's why I'm not a college admissions officer.

  • NGOs ain't all perfect
  • Posted by Art on July 14, 2005 at 7:13pm EDT
  • "One final thought: one commenter advanced “five years in an NGO” as an incontrovertible sign of virtue."

    FYI: NGO in question works with "poorest of the poor, the dying & the destitute," on private donations. Not for f'ing Osama. Not for Adolph. When you die, you should be so lucky, to be with these kind of people.

    Key point: not everyone who gets into Harvard is Bush'ed/Gore'd/Clinton'd. Further, HYP ain't a total meritocracy; some admit's are social morons/psycho's. But there are some real gems, too.

  • No more tears!!!
  • Posted by Nancy Jacollege , Admissions Officer on July 15, 2005 at 11:18am EDT
  • Dear Deirdre,
    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
    How horrorific your life has been. Perhaps we can get some of Mother Theresa's sisters to come and comfort you.
    Here is the realy issue: your son is more mature then you. I see you a thousand times a week. Complaining about your son's ID Card picture, schedule, roommate, math professor. Stop being over involved and let your kid run his own life.
    With love always,
    Nancy

  • Posted by Jessica , Development Officer on July 15, 2005 at 11:20am EDT
  • "And what happens to families whose children go to schools with under-staffed and overburdened guidance offices and who cannot afford private college consultants, clever essay editors, test prep courses and mammoth charitable contributions?"

    Answer: We went to public colleges and universities, where we received excellent educations, outstanding leadership opportunities, and less debt.

  • Posted by Andrew McNeill , Director of College Counseling at The Taft School on July 16, 2005 at 5:18am EDT
  • As a college counselor at one of the nation's most selective and competitive boarding schools, I have to say I love the dialogue about Ms. Henderson's article. Many of my parents are caught in the prestige trap, offering "I only want her to be happy, and she'd be happy at Princeton." Others in my parent body have re-financed their homes and receive Taft scholarships in order to give their child a superior education.

    My take on the ralationship between class and college admission is that in the last two decades (yes, Democrats, even under Clinton) the gap between have and have not has increased dramatically, and no one knows that more than the haves. Whether the haves have from inheritance or through work and talent, they don't want to see their children slip into the increasingly hopeless (from an monetary perspective) have not group. Investing several thousand dollars into the college/label search process is not an unreasonable investment for that person. Some of the anger shot at Ms. Henderson and those who pay for college admissions consultants derives from the fact that some - not all - of the have nots really wish they, too, had money to squander on such things. Shoot, I wish I had squanderable money!

    Take heart, those of you who cannot spend the money to help gain access to those (yuck!) "nifty fifty" colleges. Robert Samualson of MIT did a comprehensive study in which he showed that an Ivy education does NOT enhance one's future earnings. Perhaps "retired Professor's" comment about attending a college where teaching is crucial and scholarship/publishing secondary has something to do with this. Maybe, just maybe, quality education has something to do with one's future. Maybe, just maybe, a nifty label means less than a nifty mind once one gets into the workplace. And certainly, the fifty colleges represent a handful of the superiror learning environments available in this country today.

  • Posted by Nancy on July 18, 2005 at 6:56pm EDT
  • It isn't over with undergraduate acceptance. The process starts all over again with grad school, especially if applying to an impacted field such as medicine, veterinary school, clinical psychology.

    It does matter what school you attend. I know that my academic training was important to later employers because they said so. Success builds on success -- students from prestigious undergrad schools get better treatment in graduate admissions and later in selection for postdocs and academic jobs, and especially in industry where names of good universities may be less familiar.

  • Reputation does not equal quality
  • Posted by jem on July 19, 2005 at 10:34am EDT
  • But the difference, Nancy, is that graduate schools and professional employers know the difference between "nifty" labels and actual quality of education, and they understand that typical college rankings don't indicate the quality of any particular program or course-of-study within that university.

    A B.A. degree from a solid liberal arts college with an emphasis on teaching--one that cultivates individual student learning and creative thinking--is a much stronger indication of success in graduate school than an undergraduate degree from a prestigious research university where the emphasis is on graduate training, scholarship, and research dollars, and where undergraduates receive little if any face-time with their professors.

    Similarly, getting a Ph.D. from a high-ranking university doesn't mean anything if the reputation of that particular department within the profession doesn't coincide with the overall ranking of the university. Often, the reputation of a particular faculty member or committee counts for more than the name of the school or department. This is why personal "fit" and intellectual environment is worth far more than any "Top 50" list.

    What's more, no prestigious label is going to help your child actually succeed in college. In fact, it may do more to intimidate and discourage them than to help them along. Feeling out-of-place, unprepared, uncomfortable, or overlooked will destroy any chance they have of doing well. Far better to place them in a college that suits their personality, interests, learning needs, and social needs (remember, these are kids who are still adjusting to the world and developing relationships, not just preparing for a career). Too often, parental expectations and ambitions overshadow the needs or desires of the students, and these lists, rankings, and expensive prep courses only perpetuate the myth that one elite education fits all--and that failure to attain that education implies future failure in life. It's just not true.

  • Posted by K. York on July 19, 2005 at 1:40pm EDT
  • Is this discussion really about wanting the best for your child or wanting your child to be the best? I think Nancy answered that question when she said:
    It isn’t over with undergraduate acceptance. The process starts all over again with grad school, especially if applying to an impacted field such as medicine, veterinary school, clinical psychology.
    It does matter what school you attend. I know that my academic training was important to later employers because they said so. Success builds on success — students from prestigious undergrad schools get better treatment in graduate admissions and later in selection for postdocs and academic jobs, and especially in industry where names of good universities may be less familiar.
    Our children aren’t even out of high school, and, in many cases, we’re already thinking of graduate school in “impacted” fields such as medicine, post doc work and then of course residency at only the most prestigious medical schools. We want our kids to be superchildren turned superadults who take second place to no one. As a result, we’re raising a generation of overachievers who will never be satisfied with what they’ve attained thus far. What happened to wanting your child to find a vocation that he loves, rather than one that will gain him honor? Is it that you might have to admit at the company cocktail party that your child is a sportswriter rather than a neurosurgeon?

  • A few points
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on August 19, 2005 at 9:52pm EDT
  • The whole idea of this short-essay writing is preposterous. No ACT/SAT/SATII/admissions essay that is only a few hundred words long and has nothing to do with, say, research, is of any real use is demonstrating...anything. The colleges should cut the writing, essays, and short answer sections out. They do a disservice to everyone.

    It would be nice if schools could adopt a purely quantitative approach, such as exclusively using AP and ACT scores, rather than this nonsense where the "packaging" becomes more important than the student's actual intelligence and capabilities.

    As for the NGOs and volunteer service, this really has little to do with 1. career or research preparation 2. ability to perform collegiate tasks 3. actual dedication to the "poor." Many NGOs perform little good, most students at most of them are either there because someone (like my high school) made them, or to puff up their papers.

    Same with athletics, most extracurriculars and the like.

    We could basically create a chart of who would get in and with what scholorships based on their combined test results, sort applicants by computer and eliminate all this process by just having high schools forward the test scores at student request rather than filling out an application.

  • Response to 'Admissions: Worse Than Ever"
  • Posted by Judy Zodda , Educational Consultant on January 23, 2006 at 6:45pm EST
  • Since I am one of the much maligned consultants referred to in this article, I took much offense to statements which characterizes us as a money grubbing, unethical, and unprofessional group of people. I cannot speak for others, but I have entered this profession late in my life because I do value students and am concerned about what the admissions process does to high school students in today's admissions climate. It has robbed them of their high school years, which used to be a carefree time of life, filled with joy, fun,laughter, and a genuine love of learning.

    I am trying to take some of the pressure off of students by saying,"You are fine just the way you are and together we will find a range of schools that, in the end, you will be happy to attend." I try to restore their self-esteem and tell them that SAT scores do not define how they will perform in college or even, especially in life. I also try to simplify a process that is difficult to understand, can be overwhelming, and which seems to be a moving target from year to year. I would venture to say that if any of us (the baby boomers)had to go through what today's high school students (many of them, our children) have to go through just to get into college, many of us would have collapsed in the process.

    I urge you to read College Unranked by Lloyd Thacker for those of you who are particularly disturbed by the process. Perhaps this will reassure you that in the next few years, there is a sea change coming in how the college admissions process may change.The colleges themselves are beginning to question their own process, as is evidenced by the authors of the essays in this book...admissions officers at many leading colleges. They should be questioning the process when it leads students attending the most prestigious colleges to email or fax papers home for their parents to read and edit before turning them in, or to audit a course fisrt to determine if they can get an A. Even our highest achievers are afraid to experiment with courses that sound interesting, or take a risk with a subject they know nothing about, if the end result may mean a grade less than an A. Parents need to ask themselves, why they haven't given their children the right to fail, pick themselves up,and learn from their mistakes, before heading off to college? Today's parents shoulder as much, if not more of the state of today's admissions climate as the colleges themselves.

    I also resent that the author of this article thinks we are all a bunch of money grubbing unprofessionals. Do you know of any doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, plumbers, builders, electricians, media and/or technology experts who would not charge for their time and expertise? If you find any, please let me know. The people that I am associated with in this field are professional, trained, research oriented, and above all, ethical individuals.
    I do not charge people tens of thousands of dollars, nor do I ever intend to. I also do a fair amount of pro bono work and also work on a sliding scale. Since I spend more hours than I would even care to add up, researching and visiting schools and programs, attending conferences, and reading to further educate myself, in order to keep up with what's going on in the field for my clients(who are my students, not their parents,) I feel that I should get paid something for doing this, and if I can reduce the stress in the process, bravo!!

    Judy Zodda
    Associate Member, IECA