Princeton college consultants must prioritize accessibility and pedagogy, not profit
By Ava Chen | September 10, 2024, 11:30pm EDT
This summer, a new array of advertisements began to flood my Instagram feed. The ads promoted college consulting services offered by incoming students at elite schools like Princeton. SAT tutoring, essay editing, research project mentorship — these services span the entire college application, facilitated through platforms ranging from professional websites to Google Forms. But this help is often not entirely borne of generous spirits. These services, and the exploding college consulting industry at large, is often driven by profit obsession, understanding that some will pay a great deal of money to gain a coveted “elite” education.
As Princeton students, we are uniquely able to charge premium prices for any college counseling services we provide. Yet when we offer consulting services, profit should not be at the center of our philosophy. Rather, we must proactively prioritize cross-class accessibility and effective pedagogy.
In the last decade, the value of educational consulting as an industry has skyrocketed from $400 million to $2.9 billion. Similarly, membership of the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA), an international membership organization of educational consultants, has more than doubled. A top college consulting firm, Command Education, charges $120,000 for a year of consulting, and prices surge to $250,000 — nearly a typical four-year college tuition — for just the two weeks’ worth of mentoring between early action decisions and regular decision deadlines in January. Consulting company IvyWise charges an average of $25,000 per student. Across the college consulting industry, the IECA reports an average hourly rate of $230 and an average comprehensive fee of $6,450 per student.
It is abundantly clear that wealthy applicants are the predominant recipients of this type of aid. At Princeton, according to the Class of 2027 Frosh Survey, half of all respondents earning over $500 thousand a year used private assistance in applications, as opposed to roughly 10 percent for those earning under $80 thousand. Even Command’s CEO Christopher Rim acknowledges the “unfair advantage” he offers to the upper class, but justifies it by claiming, “I’m not helping a wealthy client take the spot of a low-income student … [wealthy students are] competing against each other.”
But here, Rim also implicitly admits a reason why consulting companies may take certain wealthy clients beyond their wallets. Canh Oxelson, former admissions officer at the University of Pennsylvania, put it best: “The kid’s going to get in no matter what.” Command touts a 94 percent acceptance rate into students’ top three choices, while IvyWise showcases acceptance rates thrice the national average for a slew of universities — key marketing techniques that pass off the importance of wealth in admissions as their own consulting value. There’s a glaring irony to how the most elaborate, expensive services are offered to students who need them least.
While student consultants may charge much less than industry elites, their similar culture inevitably elicits the same pay-to-play notion of corporate consulting. There’s nothing wrong with talented and motivated students offering their help as tutors, of course. But they must distance themselves from the ethos of profit-obsessed giants like Command Education and instead offer services in a way that not only tutors, but also equalizes.
Many student consultants offer free 15 — 20 minute introduction calls, but I encourage them to do more. An unambiguous focus on providing services to any student regardless of financial need would be a necessary first step to ensuring the integrity of student-offered consulting services. One method is to directly remove the cost barrier. Matriculate, a national nonprofit, connects high-achieving, low-income high school students to trained undergraduate advisors. Getting involved with organizations like Matriculate’s Princeton chapter is just one way Princetonians can start to chip away at the financial hurdles so ingrained in the multi-billion-dollar college consulting industry.
Secondly, we need a reinvigorated focus on the mentee, not just the mentor. Every tutor advertises their personal credentials first and foremost — awards, research experience, test scores. This makes sense — tutors should be experts. But single-mindedly emphasizing these credentials only serves to enhance the attractiveness and profitability of the tutor and fails to indicate how these tutors will actually serve their mentees. Instead, emphasizing teaching-related qualifications like mentoring background and specific pedagogy would help students more effectively select tutors that work with their learning style. Teachers are hired for far more than subject matter expertise — they should be judged on their ability to teach it.
This focus on effective pedagogical skills helps deconstruct misguided assumptions about the tutor’s merit, like that those with the best resumes are necessarily the best to learn from, when so many other factors — often out of students’ control — can influence their achievements and tutoring ability. Overall, deliberately shifting the emphasis from mentor achievement to educational expertise, and thus how mentors could uplift under-resourced mentees, would ensure both the efficacy and integrity of these consulting services college students offer.
High school students aspiring to attend highly selective schools naturally seek the advice of those who are currently attending. Current students have not only successfully navigated the application, but are also close in age and cultural knowledge to these students. These students want our advice, and in a world where pressure to get into a “good college” is pervasive, they may be desperate for it. So, let’s not take advantage of them. College students should leverage our relatability and knowledge for good — not for profit.
Originally published on The Daily Princetonian on September 10, 2024
