<p>Sorry if I was unclear. If a student accepts a spot on a WL and the GC calls the school, talks to someone he/she knows and says " my student really REALLY wants to come to your school. Can you see if there is anything you can do to find a spot for them? I can speak highly of this student and I know they want to attend your school". Then, if the student is offered a spot in the class, and then declines it, it doesnt look good for the GC and can potentially affect their credibility if they call in a favor that then is declined.</p>
<p>It is baffling to me that while we believe that schools form a freshmen class according to their instructional needs we might think they top it up with WL admits chosen to please a connected GC.</p>
<p>The assumption that a GC knows if a student would attend a particular school better than the applicant is silly. </p>
<p>Fwiw, there is a bit of GC pleasing that takes place, but that is in the form of the polite and disguised rejection when offering a WL spot. Considering the ratio of admissions to the asinine size of the WL, it is obvious that way too much ink is spilled on describing what works to get out of the WL. And way too much credit is given to the mythical role of a GC.</p>
<p>This exact situation comes up at small private high schools and top public high schools as well. The GC or college advisor will have a close relationship with the regional admissions officer at a handful or perhaps a dozen schools where students matriculate every year. This relationship has grown over years as the regional rep visits the hs annually, they see each other at conventions, etc. The GC will absolutely call and advocate for a borderline student who says this college is their first choice or for a WL student. And yes, their credibility is at stake. If the GC pushes for a student to come off the WL, it happens, and then the student declines the offer, it is awkward.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - think of it this way - the regional rep has a territory that includes two states. Within those two states, this rep visits 200 high schools every September and October. Of those 200 high schools, some send more applications, some send fewer. Some have a higher percentage of students who matriculate. Just like any person who works in a sales field (and yes, this is a sales position) the regional rep will focus on those hs that give the best results and will forge close relationships with the GC at that hs. Maybe the rep comes back in February and does a program for junior students and their parents. Maybe the rep takes the GC out to dinner every spring and they start discussing rising seniors. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship.</p>
<p>
Perhaps, but I do recall a back-channel conversation with someone a few years back who did just this. Their kid was not admitted anywhere initially. Had the GC, who ws known to the school and some of the adcomms, place a call as I described above, and the student was instantly offered a spot in the class. But then, shortly thereafter, said student was offered a spot o in another school, and promptly declined the first offer. Coincidence? Maybe. Either way, the adcomm called in a favor and it didnt look good, IMO.</p>
<p>**xposted with rockvillemom</p>
<p>“Getting enough to fill the budget without taking their circumstances into consideration is an issue. An exception to this are the international students.”</p>
<p>When that happens it’s because they don’t really want 'em. Winston et al. proved years ago that there are multiple times the number of low-income students qualified to attend so-called top schools as are actually attending. Most of this has to do with the recruitment policies. And, as first Smith and then Amherst proved conclusively, when they want more low-income students to attend, they find them and accept them, almost instantly.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Tina Fey is an actress. And she plays fantasy roles. </p>
<p>It has been a decade since Michele, Jacques, and Rachel wrote their tell-all books about the roles od adcoms and their relations with the GCs. Except for the MOST rare occurrences, that symbiotic relation is purely mythical. Today, the world is one of communications based on data, numbers, and evidence. That is where GC come in. They submit transcripts and canned LORs. Adcoms have learned to rely on the subjective information sent by the APPLICANTS, namely the essays, the activity lists, the choice of LOR, etc. adcoms have learned that today’s students DO have a telephone and are social media animals. The days that it was necessary to call Mrs. Goodmanners in some dusty officer are long gone. Adcoms call the students, except when they need a clarification about a transcript or the school profile. They realize that the work of GC is a lot more varied than college guidance. </p>
<p>And, lastly, realize that the sources that report the “talks” are none other than the GC.</p>
<p>I have to laugh Xiggi - have you actually worked at a hs? How about in the actual college counseling office? Unless you have actually been there, you have no idea.</p>
<p>OK, I will surely look you up to gain some insights in the issues discussed here.</p>
<p>As a teacher at a highly selective independent school with a strong track record in college admissions, I can speak to the experience of college counselors at top prep schools. While I don’t see our counselors getting treated to many dinners out, they do have close relationships with many college admissions officers and directors. One reason for this is that they have close relationships with their advisees. Our counselors only do college admissions. They are not tasked with student mental health, course scheduling, or discipline (as many public school guidance counselors are). Each college counselor advises fewer than fifty students, and they start meeting with them one on one during junior year. They also meet with every family at least once. They have the time to do their job very well.</p>
<p>As a result of this, our counselor recommendations are far from generic. Before writing they read the narrative evaluations in the student’s file (yes, we have narrative evaluations for every report card). When they have trouble “getting” a kid they contact teachers and coaches for insight and anecdotes. They attend school events, so they’ve seen their advisees’ artistic and athletic performances. They’ve also spent several hours with the student learning about their goals, interests, and college preferences. </p>
<p>Believe me, they are active in dealing with wait lists. They believe it is important for the student to develop an emotional bond with their college, to be excited about going there. They recognize that staying on wait lists can undermine this bond, making a school that the student was excited about attending feel like a back-up when the wait list spot does not become an admission. They generally urge students not to stay on wait lists unless they are 100% certain that they will attend the school if they are admitted. If the student is certain that they will attend if admitted, our counselors talk to the college admissions office. They check on how likely the school is to go to its wait list, they find out where the student stands, they make it clear that the student is 100% committed to attending the college, and they explain why the student is a good fit for the college, often comparing them to past students from our school who have attended. </p>
<p>Sometimes they are even able to find out why the student was wait listed rather than admitted. If there was a concern about the application they are able to address it. For example, I remember a top student who was wait listed at Duke. His counselor learned that the admissions was committee worried, based on something in the essay, that the student might be a bit arrogant. The counselor was able to explain that nothing could be further from the truth, and the student was admitted. After Duke he went on to med school and Yale Law. Yes, the Duke admissions office trusts the input of this college counselor. </p>
<p>We’ll probably never have the data to know if our students get off of wait lists at a greater rate than the pool as a whole, but I expect that they do.</p>
<p>Mirabile - thank you for a post that confirms what I have experienced. Many private high schools have a college counseling office that is focused solely on college admissions. These employees are not generic guidance counselors who have a huge caseload of all ages - they are just tasked with college admissions. One aspect of the job is to develop and maintain those close relationships with the regional college reps. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for some posters to accept. It is one of the reasons families in our area pay $30,000/year for a private hs in the first place.</p>
<p>There is no wide spread “go to dinner” type relationships, but as in any and every field, yes, people do know others. They have friends, family, acquaintances, workplace contacts. So there are those who are high school gcs or specifically, for some high schools, admissions counselors, that know some college adcoms. There may be a school or two where there are strong connections. But to think this is a wide spread connections network that stuff those kids best connected to the most desired colleges first, absolutely NOT. I have no doubt that some things might get by, and there is corruption in just about every business, so I don’t doubt there may be some in college admisions, but as a whole, it is not through GC wranglings and dealings. </p>
<p>The waitlist can be a situation where a counselor at a school who is good for her word can be helpful with some personal contact or just lots of kids at that school. By the time it comes to WL, the admissions offices at the colleges wan this over as quickly as possible. If they can get an inside word from someone they feel is reliable that a candidate they know is viable and can pay is going to take the spot, yes, it can have some weight. The independent school I know well, does extremely well with waitlist politics of selective colleges, particularly the LACs.</p>
<p>I can confirm my kids’ high school GCs had conference calls with adcoms prior to the decision day. D1’s GC had the sense (not 100% positive) of which school D1 was going to be admitted or rejected. I still remember what she said, “D1 will have some good options, but maybe just not the option she wants.” She also told us why D1 was WL at some schools. She asked us if any one of those schools was D1’s favorite and if she would go if she had the option. The GC said she would contact the school on D1’s behalf if she knew for sure, otherwise the GC wouldn’t want to put her reputation on the line. She got all of her students off their WL D1’s year. </p>
<p>D2 transferred to an international school junior year, and their GCs didn’t have similar relationship with adcoms. When I asked D2’s GC to make some calls on D2’s behalf, she did so very reluctantly and often didn’t get calls returned.</p>
<p>A friend’s son went to one of top private schools in NYC. Their GCs were heavily courted by next tier colleges. GCs were told that if they could send some students their way, favors could be returned later on. The school some how fell out of favor with Harvard and no one got admitted for few years. The headmaster was close being fired until she went to pay her respect and few students were admitted the following year.</p>
<p>These stories are pretty distasteful from an ethical standpoint, but not surprising. They do leave me more impressed with the kids from our huge, strapped public school with inadequate counseling services who manage to get into their top-choice colleges without the benefit of money and connections.</p>
<p>sally - agree completely. My sons attended our local public hs and did just fine. Any while many kids choose to stay instate, our hs sends kids to the top universities in the country as well. But there are some situations where students at small private high schools have an advantage and WL situations are simply one of them.</p>
<p>Connection or no connection, adcoms wouldn’t admit those students if they weren’t qualified in the first place. I don’t think anything unethical is committed here.</p>
<p>A good friend’s D was attending a public school. I told her what to do with her D’s WL schools. She did exactly that, except her D’s GC wouldn’t make those calls because she didn’t feel it was her job. Her D also got into every WL schools by sending in additional information and calling the school directly herself.</p>
<p>I have not heard of or witnessed anything like the things that oldfort describes, though that does not mean that they do not happen. At the same time, even without any corruption or quid pro quo, it is undeniable that students who are fortunate enough to attend schools with dedicated college counseling departments and/or very low student:counselor ratios have an advantage. Though it might seem more fair for all students to have the same limited college counseling support that is common at the least resourced public schools, this would not solve the problem. In that world students from families with more experience would still have an advantage, as would students who had the resources to hire private college consultants.</p>
<p>It’s like insider trading, with kids as the currency. I do think it is unethical because it offers confers advantages to students with connections over those without. I don’t think the students themselves are doing anything wrong–they are just lucky to enjoy and take advantage of benefits others don’t have. As an earlier poster said, GC jobs are essentially sales positions–so I understand why this happens, especially at private high schools that are competing against each other for top students and tuition dollars.</p>
<p>sally305-</p>
<p>I agree that the system is unfair. But not just when it comes to college counseling. As a society we have chosen to fund public school systems that cannot compete with the support and offerings of many private schools, and we have chosen to allow those who can escape the public system to do so. We have also chosen to allow different areas to provide radically different support for public education, and to allow a school in one district to spend twice the amount per student as a school in another district, just minutes away from the first. Despite giving it lip service, our actions as voters demonstrate that we are unwilling to fund equal opportunity.</p>
<p>I agree completely. We seem to have lost our way as a country. “Equal opportunity”? Not by a long shot. Yet there are those who insist that everyone can succeed if only they’d work harder. So much depends on “accident of birth,” for better and for worse.</p>
<p>Children who want to go to so-called “top” universities should do some research before they choose their parents.</p>