Skool wrote:K. I guess I'm dumb.
Again, if you know who you are, have a point of view, and have good judgment in how you communicate in a professional context, what good reason is there to hire these people? If you're a cohesive and compelling person, why can't you craft a cohesive and compelling application?
So you can pay someone to listen to your stressed out December worry-warting? ("That alone perhaps made the decision to hire her worth it"). Sounds like a bull shit luxury to me.
And admissions is not that fucking "opaque". Those guys are responsive to really clear incentives that have been discussed to death (see Campos, TLS, and the Internet, et al., passim, ad naseum).
I would say, hiring for negotiation purposes is kind of the only reason to hire these guys. Notice how clammy spivey has been on negotiation strategy lately. He says things like oh, you know, the admissions offices have been adapting to our published advice, so I don't want to show too much of my/my clients' hands publicly. I think that even Spivey must know that the negotiation game is really one of the only ways he's really adding value people can't easily access through other sources. I don't think it's just about keeping tricks up his sleeve for his paying clients; I think there's an element of incentivizing people to pay for his services, which is smart and appropriate on his part. I could be reading this wrong, but I doubt it.
I never said you're dumb, though you might be. I said that your comments were baseless and aggressive and thereby moronic. My response to your note above:
Consultants are of course luxuries. No applicant needs one. But if an applicant can afford one, they do indeed provide value. It's that simple. And, yes, people can craft cohesive and compelling applications on their own. Many people do. But, again, the perspective that consultants provide with regard to the admissions process is, I found, valuable. For me, it was well worth the money (many times over).
As to your other points, what is a "bullshit luxury" to you may not be to others. And, when I referred to admissions as "opaque," I was referring mainly to Y and S.
Now, I'm responding to your arguments, but I shouldn't be. It seems fair to assume that you didn't use a consultant. And so you have no basis on which to argue whether others should use one or shouldn't. Perhaps you wouldn't have gained anything from one (is this true? I'd wager it's not), but that's not to say that others wouldn't as well.
On to your other comments..