According to two recent articles in “Inside Higher Ed,” the College Consulting profession continues to be defined -- and refined -- by market responses to practices in the field.
No longer is it acceptable for members of IECA (the Independent Education Consultants Association, which is the leading professional association) to serve in dual roles as an “insider” (my word for a college admissions officer) and also as a Independent College Consultant. IECA members are practitioners who provide objective guidance in helping students find the college that fits them best.
This is good news for practitioners and clients alike. Some of us practice in regions that are not well penetrated by consultants, nor well understood by prospective clients. Our region needs trust-worthy and low-cost services to meet the needs of an under-served student population. IECA’s revised ethics code supports us in gaining trust from clients.
The articles and sources follow.
New Ethics Rules for Admissions Consultants
When news broke this spring that some college admissions counselors also were moonlighting as private admissions consultants, many college admissions experts were angry not only at the conflict of interest, but at the fact that the ethics code for private admissions consultants didn’t ban the practice.
Now it does. The Independent Educational Consultants Association has changed its ethics code to bar people who work in college admissions from also working as private college admissions consultants. This represents a major shift for the association, which until now has only required that consultants report such dual roles and pledge to avoid conflicts. Critics have charged that it is fundamentally wrong for someone who has access to inside information about admissions practices to simultaneously be advising clients on the admissions process, however much disclosure is involved.
The association has made other changes in its ethics rules as well. Gifts from colleges that have a value of more than $50 will now be banned. In addition, it will now be official association policy that Web sites and other promotional material must be designed to decrease, rather than encourage, anxiety over the admissions process. That means that boasting about admit rates of clients or scary text about the high rejection rates at many elite colleges will disqualify private counselors from group membership.
In the month since it enacted the new rules, the association has already turned away about six prospective members, saying that they don’t meet the new standards.
“We think colleges should only want to work with consultants that are above reproach,” said Mark Sklarow, executive director of the association. The idea of the tougher rules, in the wake of criticism over conflicts of interest, is to show that “we’re not doing anything unethical, immoral, underhanded. If we are not playing to parent anxieties, we can work together more effectively.”
The dual role — of college admissions counselors simultaneously working as consultants — captured attention this spring. But Sklarow said that the association went beyond that because of other problems that have been surfacing. For example, he said that the ban on gifts in excess of $50 is being adopted because of an escalation of “giving” to consultants by some admissions officers.
Many of the gifts were associated with visits to campuses arranged by admissions offices. While reimbursement for travel expenses associated with those visits will still be permitted, gifts that are added on will not. For example, Sklarow said that admissions consultants reported being offered tickets to National Football League games by one college, or offered professional massages while visiting another college. (He declined to identify the colleges, and said that the massages were literally just that, and were not a euphemism for other services.)
While Sklarow said he wasn’t bothered by colleges giving admissions consultants a T-shirt or hat, or paying for educational visits, the trend has been “from being about educational expenses to gratuitous giving.” The ban on giving goes both ways — so admissions offices that have been receiving swag from consultants may need to expect more modest fruit baskets this Christmas.
The other new ethics requirement — that counselors have a responsibility to reduce student and parent anxiety — is more subjective than the measures about conflict of interest. But Sklarow said it may be particularly important. Some private admissions consultants — including some of the most prominent — regularly give talks or have material on their Web sites that play off of the frenzy that some parents feel about the college admissions process. Sklarow said that eventually, the association will review all materials used by all members — and that for now, it will review any materials from those seeking membership — and will use this to block such material.
“If we look at a Web site or materials that emphasize getting in as opposed to a good match, that is immediate grounds” for rejection, Sklarow said. Already, he added, a number of members have changed their Web sites. Sklarow stressed that he doesn’t view removal of such materials as hurting anyone. Many critics have noted that the highest end consultants tend to specialize in exceptionally talented, well educated clients — those who would have gotten in anyway in many cases, so having a high admit rate may not say much.
“I’d rather know how many of you have kids you have worked with who are happy and thriving,” Sklarow said.
Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers, has been a leading critic on conflict of interest in admissions, and he applauded the tougher stance being taken by the private counselors. He said it was “astonishing” that some of these rules haven’t been in place previously, but that he found the new rules “quite positive” and “necessary ingredients for ethical behavior.”
Nassirian said that the rules on minimizing family anxiety may be among the most significant changes. Far too many counselors, he said, have built their businesses on “ominous information” and “cynical capitalizing on the fears and lack of information of families.”
At the same time, Nassirian said that he has concerns about the private counseling industry, even as practiced by “the most ethical” of its members, under these new guidelines. “This is something that is done for a fee, and inherently the ‘haves’ benefit,” he said. When the college admissions process for wealthier students is eased and enhanced by private counselors — while others don’t have access — “is this equitable?” he asked.
— Scott Jaschik
The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/29/ethics.
Source: http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/07/29/ethics
Admissions Official and Consultant — at the Same Time
Some in college admissions worry about a “revolving door” ethics problem in which officials of top colleges leave their positions to set up or join companies that advise students and families on how to get into college.
At the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, a senior admissions official didn’t quit; she set up a consulting business for applicants while working in admissions at Penn. Judith S. Hodara even noted her Wharton job title (senior associate director of admissions for the M.B.A. program) on the Web site of her company, IvyStone Educational Consultants.
On Thursday, shortly after receiving a voicemail and e-mail from a reporter about her consulting job, Hodara took down her company’s Web site. Later Thursday, Penn released a statement: “This matter came to our attention yesterday and we have since reviewed the situation. In order to avoid even an appearance of conflict of interest, Ms. Hodara has resigned from all outside consulting activities.”
Asked if Penn considered the arrangement appropriate, a university spokeswoman said via e-mail: “Penn does not consider this type of situation to be appropriate, which is why it has been ended.”
Penn officials and Hodara did not respond to questions about whether IvyStone clients ever applied to Penn.
For Hodara, this is the second gig outside of Penn she gave up this week. After Inside Higher Ed reported that she had been serving on an advisory board for a company in Japan that is paid by clients to help them win admission into top M.B.A. programs in the United States, she resigned from that position. In a statement, she said: “Since accepting this position, I’ve done no work with the company, I have attended no meetings, and I have received no compensation. To avoid the appearance of any possible conflict of interest I’ve resigned from the committee effective immediately.”
Earlier, she had defended her role on the company as ethical because she was not involved in counseling clients, only providing advice to company employees who did so.
IvyStone, however, offered services that were direct consulting. While Hodara took down the company’s Web site, archived versions of it are available online through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and show that the company offered counseling on a per-visit arrangement up through a three-year package, that counseling covered developing a list of colleges, planning for campus visits, simulated admissions interviews, and help to “present the ‘best you’ there is.” Material on the company’s Web site as of Thursday morning noted that Hodara had previously worked in undergraduate admissions at Penn.
“I have first-hand admissions experience as Associate Director of Admissions at the University of Pennsylvania where I read and counseled more than 10,000 applicants, both from the U.S. and abroad. I am currently a Senior Associate Director of Admissions at the Wharton School M.B.A. Program, and I also maintain a strong pulse on the undergraduate process,” said Hodara in a Q&A posted on the company’s Web site.
Lloyd Thacker, founder of the Education Conservancy, a group committed to reforming college admissions, said he was shocked to hear that an admissions officer had a consulting business for applicants on the side. “I would hope anybody in the profession would say that this is unethical, wrong and should not happen,” he said.
There is no evidence that Hodara in any way hid her outside activities. In a biography for a podcast, she noted both her Wharton job and her business.
Thacker said that the situation leaves him with many questions: “Why didn’t the college know about her doing business on the side. If people did know, why didn’t the college do something about it?”
— Scott Jaschik
The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/02/01/wharton.
Source: http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/02/01/wharton
My mission is to empower youth with: - The knowledge about career possibilities, and the education and training needed to attain them - The creative-thinking and emotional skills that make for good career decisions and which employers prefer; - And the resilience needed to flourish in life.
