ACT study help - American College Testing: English, Math, Reading, Science, Writing Updated: 2023

College admissions are in a disastrous state. The 2019 “Varsity Blues” scandal showed just how easy it was to buy and sell access. Lawsuits that challenged, and put an end to, race-based admission preferences illuminated how elite colleges sell seats to deep-pocketed donors and favored children of alumni. Meanwhile, most colleges have dropped requirements that students take the SAT or ACT.

Through all the self-dealing, social tension, and scandal, the cottage industry of grifters who pass for “college admissions consultants” has quietly prospered. This says much about the state of higher education. After all, there are few fields of endeavor as untroubled about enabling such unapologetic parasites. Even ventures often denounced as “inequitable,” such as medical concierge practices or the merchants of high-occupancy toll lanes, are usually selling time savings, better service, or an improved experience.

Admissions consultants are in the business of helping their clients buy access. Period. They help manufacture a persona for students seeking to cadge a spot at the elite colleges that specialize in giving their students a leg up in the world. This is a lousy deal for pretty much everyone, except the consultants: It puts a heavy thumb on the scale for wealthy students. It leaves participating parents feeling extorted. It infuriates those other parents who see their hardworking children get the shaft. This $3 billion industry is bad for meritocracy, democracy, and parents’ pocketbooks.

The consultants themselves can be remarkably frank about what they’re doing. The big-dollar influence peddlers at Ivy Coach have explained, “Over the years, many folks have been surprised by our fees. Some have derided us. … [But] as the adage goes, ‘You get what you pay for.’”

Is there some discernible benefit from all this, other than helping clients poach seats from nonclients? Well, here’s how Command Education, one of the biggest players in the space, markets itself. Command Education’s website brags about how the firm’s “in-house design team” helped a would-be Ivy League student “create a website where she displayed her art portfolio” and launch a YouTube channel.

And it was just getting started. “Equipped with her new graphic design skills,” the site explains, “she and her [Command Education] mentor created and executed a business plan to offer her graphic design services to local artists and small businesses, redesigning logos and creating promotional and sales materials.” In short: The consultant built this student a website and a business plan so that she could fiddle with PowerPoint and then brag about her entrepreneurial streak.

Command Education cheerily reports the student wound up at Yale University.

How much does all this “assistance” cost? The Independent Educational Consultants Association reported in 2018 that the average “comprehensive” consulting package cost between $4,000 and $6,700. Those already substantial averages, though, obscure the truly eyepopping figures pocketed by the industry’s big players.

Command Education reports that its most popular package costs $85,000, with other fees ranging from a “few hundred dollars per hour” to more than $100,000 for its “all-inclusive multi-year package.” Top Tier Admissions charges $13,800 for 15 hours of “writing guidance” (Read: We’ll write your admissions essay for you). Ivy Coach reported charging “up to $1.5 million” for a five-year “full-service package” in 2018 — fees so exorbitant that it was actually kicked out of the IECA.

At these prices, companies obviously are doing more than tweaking application essays or prepping students for the SAT. They’re tailoring clients to be the kind of Stepford applicant who will pass muster with the liberal tastes that prevail in college admissions offices. Command Education boasts that it turns its clients into “award-winning nonprofit founders, community organizers, [and] political activists.”

That’s why the consultants offer a line of high-priced opportunities designed to pad a resume. San Francisco-based IvyMax offers “Global Philanthropy Leadership Programs,” which allow students to “travel to a desert in Mongolia to build sustainable-energy sources, or to Ningxia, China, to work on microfinance lending outreach.” The firm explains that the 15-day programs include time “each day for writing ‘reflections,’” designed to serve as “fodder for college essays upon returning home.”

Comprehensive packages frequently begin in eighth grade. Top Tier Admissions touts its ability to help 13- and 14-year-old middle schoolers “pursue high-impact activities, deepen their scholarly profile, prepare for standardized tests, maintain strong grades, and plan out classes to maximize course rigor.” This can all have troubling, if predictable, consequences. Former Stanford University Dean of Freshmen Julie Lythcott-Haims has observed, “I knew a large number of college students who had lived fully scheduled lives year-round as children and who, as young adults, couldn’t really tell you why they’d done most of it.” It turns out that being formfitted to the specs of college admissions staff may not be great for maturation, well-being, or sense of self.

It would be a problem even if this practice was just an affectation of the ultrawealthy, who can afford these eyepopping prices. But as selective colleges deemphasize testing and embed notions of social justice in “holistic” admissions, all while selling fast-pass access to Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and elite graduate schools, more middle- and low-income families feel pressed to play this toxic game.

And they’re not wrong to feel that way. This summer, Harvard University researchers Raj Chetty, David Deming, and John Friedman released a damning study making clear that “holistic” admissions practices at selective colleges actually amplify the massive advantage enjoyed by students from the wealthiest families. The more opaque the admissions process, the more it’s driven by networks, resume padding, and social capital. And this is what the admissions grifters are selling.

Chetty et al. found that outliers such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which emphasizes test results more than essays and interviews, were more likely to enroll a socioeconomically diverse student body. But fewer and fewer four-year colleges put a lot of weight on those kinds of arm’s-length measures. More and more emphasize the kinds of things that are easy for students to manipulate. Indeed, more than half of four-year college students report lying on their college application, with 39% misrepresenting their race or ethnicity and 34% writing untrue stories in their admissions essays.

The result is fear and confusion among collegegoers and their parents, emotions on which the admissions consultants feed. A few years back, the New York Times depicted the experience of immigrants who’d spent $15,000 on college consultants they’d found “advertised in Chinese-language magazines and newspapers, offering an Ivy League entry to immigrant parents.” The fee covered a three-day workshop and a consultant who “recommended which extracurriculars to pursue and which to discard to build a personal narrative for his applications.” That “personal narrative” looms so large because there are shibboleths required by elite colleges and parents can be desperate to find out what they are.

Educational consulting in the United States is a burgeoning industry, with 400% growth between 2005 and 2019. By 2019, there were more than 8,000 people in the college admissions counseling industry. While hard numbers are scarce, a 2006 report by Lipman Hearne found that 26% of students who scored 1150 or above on the SAT reported using an admissions counselor. The IECA commented that the results showed a rate about triple that which had been generally assumed. Ivy Coach asserted that the study “grossly underreported the percentage of high-achieving students using private college counselors.” And the racket has grown, by leaps and bounds, since 2006.

Are colleges troubled by their role in enabling and encouraging all this? After all, in 2020, admissions leaders from over 360 American universities airily proclaimed their “commitment to equity and to encourag[ing] in students self-care, balance, meaningful learning, and care for others.” After the Varsity Blues admissions scandal, in which it turned out that colleges were cheerfully engaging in or turning a blind eye to corrupt dealings, over 140 college admissions deans insisted they weren’t really looking for students who “started a new project or conducted service in a far-away country” and that they “value students who are authentic and honest in their applications.”

Experience and admissions data suggest that college officialdom doesn’t mean any of this. In the aftermath of the FBI’s Varsity Blues sting, college presidents blamed American decadence for the corruption, not their own personnel and practices. And especially following the more recent striking down of race-based preferences by the Supreme Court, college officials have signaled that they intend to put even more weight on “impressive-looking” activities and narratives that feature tales of deprivation and oppression, giving applicants ever more incentive to be inauthentic and dishonest.

Given the opportunity to design application processes that are less opaque, secretive, and susceptible to manipulation, colleges have consistently opted to push the very behaviors that enable the consultants to flourish. Consider that three of the five experts touted on the “Ivy Coach Leadership” webpage were formerly admissions counselors at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Dartmouth College. Top Tier Admissions founder Michelle Hernandez previously worked as an admissions counselor also at Dartmouth.

These grifters have helped craft selective admissions systems that are stuffed full of paeans to “equity” but rigged to reward affluent, connected applicants. Then, after they tire of selling seats to wealthy donors, they go work for firms where they can sell their insider “expertise” at a hefty price. They make those Beltway bandits who do the government-to-lobbyist shuffle look like pillars of integrity.

And, of course, the college consultant class feeds on an elite college admissions racket that is increasingly disconnected from any straightforward conception of academic merit and shaped by social engineers with particular agendas. If colleges instead had clear, transparent admissions requirements, there would still be a market for tutors and test coaches, who are at least glancingly interested in academics and learning, but far less opportunity for influence peddling.

Yet the college consulting racket is not a matter of a few thousand bad actors preying on hapless, defenseless colleges. Rather, it’s just another iteration of the same self-dealing that characterizes so much of elite higher education. As selective colleges auction admissions slots to deep-pocketed donors, reserve seats for the children of connected alumni, and favor those who’ve learned to mouth politically correct sentiments, they’ve corroded the kind of merit-based admissions process that might keep the influence peddlers at bay. Confronted with misconduct, college leaders have denied responsibility and vaguely blamed America’s innate sins. While we’ve tended in recent years to focus on the way these pathologies play out on campus, it’s crucial that we not forget the remora that feed on the doorways into and out of the college system.

It may not make sense to regulate this unsavory racket, but surely colleges concerned about either merit or “equity” should wish to do all they can to downsize the demand for it. And all of us, left, right, and center, should see the value in shaming the members of this anti-democratic, anti-meritocratic cabal.

At a time when the world’s challenges and opportunities are increasingly global and the resources supporting study abroad have never been greater, why are so few American students pursuing international education? As we work for a more peaceful future, it’s an important question to address.

Look at almost any statistical data and you’ll find that getting a college diploma can help you earn more money. The average college grad with a bachelor’s degree earns $59,600 a year, according to research from the U.S. Career Institute. That compares to an average of $42,590 for those with only a high school diploma.

See: 26 Ways To Make $1,000 Fast – In a Week or Less
Find: 100 Passive Income Ideas To Help You Make Money After a Layoff

But like most stats, those having to do with salaries don’t apply to everyone — and there are plenty of cases when you might be better off skipping college and going straight to work.

A recent survey from EduBirdie found that on average, it takes recent college graduates two to three months to land an entry-level role — even in one of the strongest job markets in recent memory. About 16% of recent grad spend more than half-a-year searching for an entry-level job.

Many have been left “disillusioned” with the process, with more than four-in-10 (43%) saying they regret the field of study they chose. A similar percentage (40%) believe they “lack the maturity” to cope in the adult world, while 26% feel their academic experiences offer them little help in overcoming hardships.

I’m a Self-Made Millionaire and Professional Money Coach: Here’s How You Can Get Rich Working Only 20 Hours Per Week

The survey of 2,000 American adults, released earlier this month, also found that 45% of respondents work in a job outside of their field of study.

“The reality is young people shouldn’t expect to throw off their graduation gowns and step immediately into their dream role,” the EduBirdie report stated. “With more than 2 million graduates joining the workforce every year, competition for starter roles has never been higher. The salary offered is comically low, and the real-life experience demanded is unrealistic, but you apply anyway. On average, you find yourself up against 250 applicants, and only four to six will be invited to an interview.”

Besides the time it takes to find the right job, here are four other reasons a college degree might not pay off, at least in the short term.

1. The cost might outweigh the benefit. As EduBirdie noted, higher education comes at an “astronomical cost,” and for many students the reward “isn’t career prosperity but a lifetime of regret” — unless they are willing to “double their debt” and head back to college.

2. College might not have a long-term career impact. Higher education “simply doesn’t prepare students to climb the corporate ladder,” according to EduBirdie. Nearly one-quarter of recent college grads (24%) fear that their education will offer little help when it comes to advancing their careers.

3. You don’t learn enough life skills. Even after graduating from college and entering the adult world, 40% of recent grads worry that they don’t have the skills to face “adult situations.”

4. You also don’t learn enough workplace skills. Learning how to do a specific job is one thing, but learning how to navigate the workplace is another — and many recent grads don’t think college prepares them well in this regard. For example, less than half (45%) of those surveyed by EduBirdie feel like they have the skills to resolve workplace conflicts.

More From GOBankingRates

This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Study Shows It Takes 16% of New Grads Six Months to Find a Job — 4 More Reasons a College Degree Won’t Pay Off

Among many criteria, the admission decision will be primarily based on your written application and supporting documents, which include your:

You will also need to understand rolling admissions and acceptance procedures.

The GPA

The GPA considered by the law school is the cumulative grade point average of every course the applicant has taken at the college level to the date of consideration.  It includes all courses taken for credit at all colleges and universities attended.  Thus, the ideal time for a student to begin "working on getting a good GPA" is the first day of classes at the first college attended.  While the maximum GPA of 4.0 ("straight A's") cannot be a realistic expectation for more than a few highly gifted and highly motivated students, it should be the goal of every pre-law student at the time he or she begins college work, and every effort should be made to come as close as possible to that goal.  Since law school is a rigorous academic program, admissions officials want proof (i.e., a high GPA, particularly in your last two years) that you can succeed in college while taking challenging courses.  A GPA below 3.0 will harm your chances of gaining admission to law school and may need to be explained.  (See personal statement discussion below) back to top

The LSAT

The LSAT is a standardized examination designed to measure skills that are important to the study of law---reading, reasoning, analyzing, and writing.  The test is administered by the Law School Admissions Council. The test’s results, when combined with GPA, are the best predictor of performance in the first year of law school, and it is required for admission by every ABA-accredited law school in the country.  You can obtain information about the LSAT and other LSAC services online. The test is now fully digital and is administered multiple times each year. You should NOT take the test on a lark, just to see how you might perform.  Even though you can retake the test numerous times, law schools may average your test scores rather than taking the highest score.  It is generally advisable to take the LSAT by October of the year in which you are applying.  This provides sufficient time to re-take the test if necessary and to change your choice of schools should you test significantly higher or lower (+ or - 4 points) than expected.

The LSAT is NOT a test for which an applicant can cram the night before.  Developing and strengthening the skills tested by the LSAT (critical reading, analytical, logical reasoning, and writing skills) are the goals of your entire college career.  In addition, you should prepare yourself to take this particular exam.  Consequently, it is very important that you thoroughly familiarize yourself with the LSAT by studying the types of questions it asks, learning strategies for answering these questions efficiently, and taking past LSAT demo exams under test conditions.  If you prepare for the LSAT on your own, study materials are available from various commercial companies.  Additionally, the LSAC has partnered with the Khan Academy to provide free LSAT prep materials. If you believe you need more than self-imposed structure while preparing for the LSAT, consider taking one of the review courses available (e.g., Princeton Review, Kaplan, Test Masters) that require you to take practice exams under test conditions, provide analysis of your strengths and weaknesses on the various types of LSAT questions, and provide tips on how to Strengthen your performance.  These courses are quite expensive (up to $1500, though some financial aid is available).  However, if you typically experience difficulty and score low on aptitude tests, such as the SAT, you should consider investing in such a course.  As with a GPA below 3.0, a score on the LSAT at or below the 25th percentile for students admitted to the schools of your choice will seriously decrease your chances for admission there.  The SCU Pre-Law Advising Program does not recommend any particular way of preparing for the LSAT, not does it endorse any commercial review course.

When registering for the LSAT, please permit your scores to be released to Santa Clara's Director of Pre-Law Advising.  This will assist us in tracking and analyzing LSAT scores of SCU students and giving better advice to future SCU students.  The Director is required to keep your individual score(s) confidential.  

Register for the LSAT sufficiently early so that you can secure a place at the most convenient testing location.  You also should determine whether each law school in which you are interested will accept scores from the February LSAT administration, which is the last test date in each administration cycle.  The quickest and easiest way to register for both the LSAT and the Credential Assembly Service (CAS, a service required by most American Bar Association-approved schools) is online at www.lsac.org. For information on fee waivers, for test sites outside of the US and associated fees, and for more detailed information about the LSAT, consult the LSAC website. back to top

The Application Process

You should apply electronically (for all ABA accredited law schools) directly through the LSAC's Credential Assembly Service. Consult LSAC website for the checklist for the law school admission process. The instructions that accompany the application should be followed exactly, and all responses should be accurate and entered without error. back to top

The Personal Statement

Virtually every law school now requires a personal statement from the applicant.  Be sure to adhere carefully to the requirements or recommendations contained in the application instructions regarding length, prompt, format, etc.  unless otherwise specified, the typical statement should be about two typewritten pages, double-spaced.  It should reflect the very best grammatical and communicative effort of the applicant because it will be judged both as to form and substance (remember you are applying to professional school).  Being simple, direct, and clear will impress admissions officials.  Using unusual words and legal terms will not (e.g., avoid "said person told me...").  Consider the personal statement as your personal interview (on paper) with the admissions committee.  This is no time to hide who you are, what truly matters to you, or to be shy or modest. You may write about an accomplishment, experience, cause, or belief that is important to you as an individual.  Present yourself in a good light, but also be honest and candid. back to top

Letters of Recommendation

Applications will indicate how many letters of recommendation are required.  Follow them precisely.  Although the LSAT and GPA form the foundation of the admission evaluation process, your personal statement and letters of recommendation can provide the admission committee with a different perspective from which to view them. Letters should comment on the applicant's academic abilities and be specific in their comments about the individual.  Therefore, they should come from professors who have had significant personal contact with the student applying. You should seek out professors from your major field and those in whose classes you have done your best academic work.   General character references, even from prominent judges, attorneys, or politicians, will NOT help your chances and may in fact hurt them because the admissions committee has learned too little about you.  Take care in selecting your recommenders, try to be certain that they will write strong letters that discuss you as an individual.  You should feel free to supply them with additional information which you may be uncomfortable supplying in your personal statement.  For example, a letter-writer could include a notation that, although your overall GPA is a 3.2, your GPA in your major is 3.5 and, excluding freshman year when you were struggling, is 3.6, or could note that your LSAT score does not reflect your overall analytic ability as manifested in the classes you took from the person recommending you. back to top

Dean's Letter

Some schools, mostly on the East Coast, require a recommendation from the Dean of your school.  Typically, this information includes class rank and academic standing. If you have been subjected to any disciplinary actions even in your first quarter at SCU, this will appear on the Dean's Letter and may harm your chances for law school admission. Contact the Office of Student Life to obtain the Dean's Letter. back to top

Admission and Acceptance

Applicants whose qualifications exceed the school's admission standards are usually accepted during the first round of decisions.  With some exceptions, candidates whose credentials fall below the school's standards are usually rejected.  Most applications are not decided upon immediately upon review.  If you have strong qualifications, but they do not quite equal those currently being admitted at a particular law school, you may be placed on a waiting list for possible admission at a later date.  The law school will notify you of its decision as early as April or as late as August.  If you are on a waiting list and can honestly say that you will enroll if accepted, inform the admissions office of this (but don't make a pest of yourself by calling frequently to inquire about your chances).  Many law schools use seat deposits to help keep track of their new classes. For example, a school may require a deposit fee of $200 to $500 (some require two fees, one by April 1 and the second by June 1), credited to your first-term tuition if you actually register at the school; if you choose not to attend, the deposit may be forfeited or returned only partially.  However, submitting multiple deposits can be risky. Law schools participating in LSAC's commitment overlap reporting service submit to LSAC information on applicants who have made verbal, written, and/or monetary agreements to attend their schools. Therefore, ask each law school about its policy on multiple deposits; some will not penalize applicants for placing multiple deposits, and others threaten to revoke offers of admission for doing so. back to top

Oct 25 (Reuters) - First-generation law students on average spend more time studying, earn slightly lower grades, and graduate with higher debt loads than classmates whose parents who graduated from college, according to a comprehensive study released on Wednesday.

The Law School Survey of Student Engagement — an annual survey of thousands of U.S. law students that is part of Indiana University's Center for Postsecondary Research — released its first-ever in-depth examination of first-generation students, finding that they make up 26% of law students nationwide.

The report highlights the additional challenges many first-generation students face and the need for law schools to provide flexibility and added support for them, said survey director Meera Deo.

“Students who are first generation are really dealing with a lot,” Deo said, citing data that they are more likely to take care of dependents and work than their classmates. She said law schools need to develop ways to help them become more engaged in campus life.

Among first-generation law students, 37% reported spending no time per week participating in law school-sponsored activities, compared with 31% of non-first-generation students, the survey found. First-generation students may simply have less time to get involved in those activities, Deo noted, but they forego the professional connections that often develop as a result.

First-generation law students are also more racially diverse, the survey found. Just 21% of white law students have parents who did not graduate from college, compared with 53% of Latino law students; 36% of Black law students; and 40% of Native American law students. Women are also more likely to be first-generation than men—28%, compared with 24%.

In 2023, first-generation law students entered with an average Law School Admission Test score of 154, which was three points lower than the 157 average among non-first-generation students, the survey found. They also earned a “B” average in law school, compared with a “B+” among other students.

Their lower average LSAT scores and undergraduate grades mean that first-generation law students are less likely to receive so-called merit scholarships, according to the survey, and they tend to come from families with lower incomes. As a result, first-generation law students are expected to graduate with higher debt than their peers. More than a third of first-generation law students said they will leave owing more than $120,000, compared with 23% of law students with a college-educated parent.

“This disparity is especially troubling,” Deo said. “We’re talking about students who come into law school with less. And they are graduating from law school owing even more.”

Read more:

Online law school classes are making the grade, survey finds

Law students report exhaustion, anxiety, food insecurity amid pandemic

Get the latest legal news of the day delivered straight to your inbox with The Afternoon Docket.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

SALEM, Ore. (TND) — It used to be that students would graduate law school and pass a bar test in order to practice, but times are changing in a number of states.

Tuesday, the Oregon Supreme Court approved a model that’ll supply applicants an alternative method to demonstrate their competence.

It’s called the Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination and it'll let applicants work in supervised apprenticeship settings after graduating from law school. Then, in the end, they’d submit a portfolio of work.

Candidates who successfully complete the Program are eligible for admission to the Oregon State Bar without taking the Uniform Bar Examination or Model Professional Responsibility Examination,” according to the Oregon State Bar.

Another model that has not yet been submitted, called the Oregon Experiential Portfolio Pathway, would offer students at the state’s three law schools a rigorous experiential curriculum in their second and third years, followed by submission of a portfolio.

Other states have been developing ways to replace the bar test model.

According to Reuters, Wisconsin offers a diploma privilege, New Hampshire lets some students who complete a specialized curriculum bypass the bar, and California is considering a change.

Maine was even considering letting some aspiring lawyers take the bar test without going to law school.

Critics of the traditional method say exams don’t adequately test the skills new lawyers will need.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge said that biomarkers in a blood test can be used to better diagnose bipolar disorder. Photo by Belova59/Pixabay