<p>This happened to a friend of mine. Her daughter was interviewing at a school and they asked her if she had ever gone to counseling. Turns out, her mom had taken her to her therapist because of problems between the mom and daughter---(the mom didn't like how the daughter was talking back to her and wanted insight from the counselor on how to deal with daughter. Daughter came in for 1-2 sessions w/ mom--end of story.) The school asked the mom about it in her interview session. The question really surprised the mother. She explained what had occurred, and reemphasized that this was her decision to take the daughter to the moms therapist for a session. </p>
<p>She thought that was the end of it, until she received a call from the school stating that they were still considering her daughters application, but wanted permission to speak with the therapist! My friend decided that the school was not the right one for her daughter.</p>
<p>Obviously, if the child has had problems in the past this needs to be addressed honestly. However, in this case, this was just a mother who wanted some help on parenting issues and her therapist suggested it might be helpful to meet with both mother and daughter, to see how the two interact. </p>
<p>I'd like to hear your opinions on how this question should have been answered. In my opinion, I think the daughter was put in a tough spot. Both the daughter and mother answered the question honestly, but obviously the interviewer was not satisfied with their answers and wanted to hear directly from the therapist. Since it was the mother's idea to take her daughter to the therapist, and the daughter had no emotional issues, other than normal mother-daughter teenage rebellion, I don't think she should have answered in the affirmative. Maybe that is dishonest, but some people have preconceived ideas about counseling and think that something is "wrong" with you if you attend therapy. </p>
<p>As an adult, you would never bring up the fact that you went to marriage, grief counseling, etc.. in a job interview. When I have interviewed for jobs, I don't mention that I am a widow with 4 kids--as I don't want to be perceived as the "poor thing" who will have to take time off work whenever her children need her, since I don't have a husband to help out.</p>
<p>That's a tough one. It is that balance between being honest and yet not sharing info that is really not relevant.<br>
I'd be interested in hearing others opinions.</p>
<p>My opinion is that this question is out of bounds for the interview, as are other health questions, with the exception of small talk regarding a cast or something like that. </p>
<p>I have seen this question on applications, which I don't see as any problem at all.</p>
<p>Your friends did the right thing, which is to tell the truth when put in a sticky situation. To avoid some sticky situations, it makes sense to look over the questions on all the applications you have, and talk with your child and spouse/other parent, if relevant, and discuss how you would approach them. This is the same as having your child ready to talk about her favorite subjects. If there are other issues pertinent to your child, such as switching schools in the past, disciplinary brushes, family situation, you should talk them through as well.</p>
<p>Thanks for bringing this up because I would not have thought to prepare my kids for such a personal question. I am surprised that they would ask a minor child that info. </p>
<p>Perhaps I would guide my child to respond that "questions of such personal/medical nature should be asked of my parents".</p>
<p>The child is not applying for a job; she's applying to live away from home, in a small community of children. The question is definitely "in bounds". </p>
<p>The school in question may ask the question of all applicants, but it's more likely that something in the interview struck a nerve with him.
On the bright side, the school's request to speak with the psychologist indicates that the school was considering the child. She was not automatically disqualified by "therapy." </p>
<p>I would have to conclude that lying in response to a direct question, or being misleading, would automatically disqualify an applicant.</p>
<p>Look at it from the school's side. If they admit a child with serious psychological problems, that child will be someone's roommate. Teenagers do sometimes develop severe problems, and these problems are likely to involve the entire school. No school wants to have to deal with the aftermath of an attempted suicide (heaven forbid!). There are threads on this board about eating disorders and other psychological issues at boarding school. I assume that any good school will be on the lookout for such problems in their students. Why would you be at pains to hide a child's counseling history from a boarding school?</p>
<p>If it were a job interview, there would be a serious legal problem.</p>
<p>This being a situation where there will be a "parentis in loco" relationship requires the school to know the state of mind of the child they are taking in and whether they can accommodate that child's needs. Asking about certain disabilities may be necessary to discern this.</p>
<p>Having it come as a surprise at an interview is a problem though. I can see the problem as many "applicants" interview before filling out an application (which would be a more appropriate place to ask these questions). I think the school's practice of asking this question in person before the paperwork is complete is a poor practice. If a school needs further details about an applicant's medical or counseling background, it should probably follow up with the applicant upon receipt of the written application. </p>
<p>Now if the applicant turned in information on their application before the interview that the school needed more details on, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they are asking about something on the application itself.</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure what to make of the school's request for permission to talk to the counselor before the admissions decision. It would seem from the nature and duration of the counseling, that there wouldn't be an issue and there wouldn't be much to gather from the counselor. Perhaps this school verifies everything and is paranoid?</p>
<p>I think a full medical release of records (including psych) is probably in order for any school, but should be requested after admission and acceptance. This will let their counselors know what they may or may not be dealing with.</p>
<p>And if their application asks about such stuff (description) and the description is false or misleading, the student could be dismissed for cause (falsifying an application) after the fact.</p>
<p>As to how to answer the question in an interview, the first part of the answer (if counseling or another medical issue is part of the past) is to assure the interviewer that (if true, of course) you don't have any outstanding counseling issues and that a small problem earlier in life was addressed and that the applicant feels very good about this. It is hard to beat up a kid who recognizes the value of counseling, isn't it?</p>
<p>You all bring up good points. I absolutely agree that if your child has some type of emotional problem, this needs to be brought out into the open. However, in this case, it was the mother who was seeing the therapist, not the child. The child did not have a "counseling history." My friend was complaining about her daughter to her therapist and the therapist suggested that perhaps the daughter could come in so that the two could express their differences in a "safe" environment. </p>
<p>I think what really bothered my friend was that she explained this to the interviewer. The interviewer seemed to understand, and agreed with her that it is sometimes helpful to have a neutral party mediate. So, she left the school feeling that they had satisfactorily addressed the issue. She was upset when the school called a few weeks later and said they wanted to get permission to interview her therapist. It was as if they didn't believe her--or her daughter. She said that she felt she was being penalized for trying to be proactive in her relationship with her daughter, trying to improve her parenting skills, their relationship, etc... and now her daughter's chances for admission at this one school are predicated on the school interviewing the mom's therapist? Mind you, this girl is a straight A student, Student Body President, top volleyball player, got great recommendations from her professors. She just was a little mouthy with her mom and her mom didn't like it and wanted to nip it in the bud.</p>
<p>I don't know your friend, jennycraig, so everything that follows is pure guesswork. However, I would not be surprised to find that something turned up in the recommendations from teachers and adminstrators at her present school. It could be something as innocuous as a teacher who's never written a recommendation before, who inadvertently used the wrong adjectives to describe the child.</p>
<p>Also, students are usually interviewed without the parent present. The child may have raised some questions in the interviewer's mind. It's perfectly possible for a kid to torpedo her chances at a school in the interview. If the kid didn't like the school, and didn't want any confrontation with the mother, that could seem to be an easy way out.</p>
<p>As I don't know you, nor your friend, I will say this. A female straight-A overachiever fits the stereotype of a child who might be anorexic. If she's a very thin girl, the admissions committee might have had reservations.</p>
<p>I never thought about that, Periwinkle. It is ironic that you mention anorexia. One of the things my friend says she fights with her daughter about is that her daughter eats a lot of the things that are earmarked for the kids lunches (i.e. hostess cupcakes, chips, fritos, etc..) She is up making lunches before the bus comes, and all the "good stuff" is gone. When she confronts her oldest daughter, her daughter mouths off to her, rather than just admitting that she ate the food.</p>
<p>I don't know if the daughter brought up some of the particulars that she fought about with her mom, but if she did, the interviewer might have thought she had an eating disorder. (She is thin, but more athletic looking than skinny.) Still, it could have been a concern for the school.</p>
<p>Personally, I have NEVER heard of a question like that...around 98% of my classmate applied to private high school/boarding prep school and nothing came like that. But if something like that happend, I am assuming that maybe the daughter or mother's personality hinted to the interview that they had like issues with eachother? It's still kinda strange tho haha</p>
<p>This is a really interesting question. I want to add that yes, it is common to ask that question and very common to speak to a child's therapist before offering admission. Most people on this board are applying to top tier schools, however, for the general boarding school population, therapy and personal issues are one of the reasons for the boarding school application in the first place. Some boarding schools have as many as 1/3 of their student body from therapeutic schools or treatment centers, and many arrange for services off campus for their students. So this question is very much in the norm. The school needs to know this information before enrolling a student.</p>
<p>I also agree with the poster that the teacher recommendations or something that the student said must have prompted the question.</p>
<p>The top tier schools don't focus on this as much, but if you are applying to some of the lesser known schools that do have a lot of kids with learning issues and emotional issues, this type of discussion is the norm during the admissions process and througout the student's time at the school.</p>
<p>Since the question is usually asked on the application for admission, I can't see how an in-person inquiry would be out-of-bounds. Though I certainly see how a applicant would feel blind-sided bythe question during the interview.</p>
<p>Certainly, if a school accepts 30%+ of it's students from therapuetic sch, or RTCs, the question is certainly in order. Such a school would probab also draw kids just shy of having attended an therapuetic sch or RTC. </p>
<p>More importantly, since not all schools publish the fact that they draw heavily from therapuetic prgms, if D had been asked that question, it would have prompted me to ask a host of questions re: % of students admitted and enrolled needing special support for such personal issues, and the type of support the sch offered. Even though she did not attend a top 10 BS, I did not want and would not have enrolled her at a sch where I knew that a large % of the student body came from RTCs or similar prgms.</p>
<p>Collegekid, no one ever doubted that the existance of schs that edconsultant described - - only that every sch other than the top 10 was filled w/ problem kids.</p>
<p>Sorry if I implied that because that isn't what I think. What I meant to say is that many schools that present themselves as mainstream schools and people suggest as backups are schools that have lots of problem kids and that people need to take a hard look at the individual schoool.</p>
<p>Read edconsultant's words: "for the general boarding school population". My point is that many posters here, like me when I applied, didn't understand who the general boarding school population is. That there were going to be many kids at my school who were not there because it was the best possible place to be educated. I didn't understand that there were a dozen or so schools where most kids went because they were excellent students and they wanted the push and most others could not be described that way.</p>
<p>Therapy, LD and personal issues are among the reasons families opt for any private school - - which tend to offer smaller sch size and smaller class size. </p>
<p>I'm certain that all pvt schs, including the top day and BSs, have a larger % of problem students than applicant families believe. The "problem" quotient at any of the top girls' day schs skyrockets if you include students whose dieting falls just short of an eating disorder diagnosis. For years, one of the two top CT BSs was referred to among day sch families as "the great white way" b/c of that schs' rep for cocaine abuse. And as AEDSCH increasingly enroll PG students, those schs too, are embracing a new set of problems. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I recognize that there are schs that attempt to mask the fact that they enroll students w/ RTC-caliber problems in far greater numbers than one would encounter at most mainstream schs. I'm just unconvinced that this scenario is as common as you suggest. </p>
<p>Above average smart is probab insuffic to get an unhooked kid into a top BS. Those appicant families should certainly investing all shcs throughly, but they shouldn't be led to believe that, by considering any sch below an AEDSCH safety they are putting their student in harm's way.</p>
<p>And, when you say, "I didn't understand that there were a dozen or so schools where most kids went because they were excellent students and they wanted the push and most others could not be described that way" - -
you are saying that every sch other than the top 10 is filled w/ problem kids.</p>
<p>No, my guess is that there are only a dozen or so that do not "bend" in taking kids who have issues. I believe this is down from 20 years ago and will continue to go down as the average school has a harder time filling up. 20 years ago many more families of mainstream kids considered boarding schools. Towns like Greenwich used to send tons of kids from 10th grade on and far fewer go today.</p>