College admissions is a tough game. As students at a competitive university, we have played the game ourselves. We all know someone -- or were that "someone" -- who was yearbook editor or basketball team captain for the primary purpose of impressing a college admissions officer.
As the number of applicants continues to surge, admission has become increasingly competitive. Recently, this trend has led to new industries, such as test preparation, essay editing and even private admissions consultants. At the most extreme, IvyWise, a consulting company based in Manhattan, offers a package that begins early in high school and includes weekly meetings through the senior year. For merely $30,000, an IvyWise consultant helps an applicant choose appropriate schools, manage her applications, and most importantly, "package" herself so that colleges can see the true student beneath the packaging, according to New York Metro.
Not surprisingly, all this talk of "selling" fresh-scrubbed 17-year-olds to fancy admissions offices has people feeling uncomfortable. First, the process troubles those who promote the silly idea that childhood should be enjoyed. Second, most Americans -- or at least reasonably well-off, white, college-educated Americans -- still cling to the idea that the college admissions process is something approximating a meritocracy. At its most self-righteous, the debate becomes a discussion of the morality of rich kids having an unfair advantage.
All this debate seems very high-minded, but it misses an obvious point: college admission has never been a meritocratic process. Well-off kids get a head start that begins as fetuses and continues long after college graduation.
Perhaps I should mention that although I did not have a private admissions consultant, I think I could have used one. At my high school, a little over half the students at went on to four-year colleges. Once my counselor successfully "persuaded" me to go on to college at our first meeting, she considered her job finished. Nonetheless, I still had advantages that many students lack. For example, I had access to challenging classes, community theater programs, a home computer and parents who went to college themselves.
The point is that "advantages" come in many forms. Unless we're prepared to outlaw nice suburban schools, violin lessons and soccer teams, rich students will benefit. Now admittedly, developing your violin talents seems like a better long-term skill than developing your college application talents, but in the end, both types of "outside help" afford similar benefits.
It's not reasonable to expect the wealthy to refrain from using their wealth. At its root, self-righteous claims that the wealthy have a "moral duty" not to use expensive college consultants seems like sour grapes. The argument ultimately contends, "I didn't get a private admissions consultant, so no one else should either!"
Moreover, there is a limit to what even the best-paid consultant can do. The student's grades, SAT scores and activities are still his own. Extra tutoring may help, but it won't transform a poor student into a brilliant one. Furthermore, it's silly to suggest that wealthy students should not take advantage of the opportunities offered to them.
In fact, the problem isn't that rich kids have counselors who can get them into great schools. It's that everyone should have that opportunity. The sad part is that the kids who have private counselors probably don't need them, and the kids who need them usually don't get them. The solution needs to involve spreading the advantages, not eliminating them from those who currently enjoy them.
This may seem idealistic, but it's not unreasonable. Funding should be increased to provide better college counseling and college preparedness programs at high schools in low-income areas. Additionally, programs like Upward Bound that provide free college prep services are increasingly important. Private admission consultants should be encouraged to take on pro-bono clients, in the same way that high-minded lawyers do. Moreover, we Penn students can volunteer with tutoring programs to help eliminate educational inequity that begins at an even earlier age.
Finally, it's important that college admission officers evaluate applicants within the context of their environments. High school counselors should fill out information describing their overall case load and how well they've been getting to know the applicants. In interviews, students should be asked about the college advising they have received.
In the end, debating the merits of fancy admissions consultants seems less like a true concern for educational meritocracy and more like a silly fascination of the education elite. It's a distraction from the real issue: the need for better schools, counseling and opportunities. If we want to improve education, it's clear where our real work lies.
Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
