I think consultants are most helpful when you are really unsure of a good fit for your child - based either on scores, or specific needs. Some people find the process of researching and assessing on their own frustrating, and like the idea of bouncing ideas/thoughts/feelings off of someone with more experience with the schools. Finding someone whose motivation is to help your family, not claim "I got X number of students into these important schools" is most important.

I think it is sad that there are people out there that do this. Admissions probably sees "another Clare admission" or "another Jean admission"

Your kids must not have what it takes if you need that much help applying to a school.

We used one. Complete waste of money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jean Baldwin and Clare Anderson are both great. Jean Baldwin also administers the WPPSI/WISC and works really well with the kids.

It seems a little disturbing that she administers tests. She only has a MA in "psychological services".. whatever that means? She may be a super consultant, but get your testings completed by someone who is licensed!

I'd rather have someone who is good with kids and has experience than someone with a PhD.

I completely hear you on the desire for someone personable and good with children (of course!), but I would only trust a licensed clinician (psychologist or neuropsychologist) for the actual testing component. Experience wise, someone with a PhD has much more experience, graduate school time, and supervised training than someone with a masters. On top of that, psychological and neuropsychological practices are governed by licensing boards. I have to imagine that a savvy admissions team would frown upon a testing administered by someone who isn't licensed. Consultations are another matter altogether obviously.

Rather than "imagining" what schools would like to see, why not go to their website and use one of their recommended testers? That's exactly how we found Jean Baldwin. IQ tests aren't designed to be subjective, so if the administrator is trained on the test, how does having a phD affect the outcome?

This is how we found Jean, too. She was one of two testers recommended by each of the schools we were looking at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jean Baldwin and Clare Anderson are both great. Jean Baldwin also administers the WPPSI/WISC and works really well with the kids.

It seems a little disturbing that she administers tests. She only has a MA in "psychological services".. whatever that means? She may be a super consultant, but get your testings completed by someone who is licensed!

I'd rather have someone who is good with kids and has experience than someone with a PhD.

I completely hear you on the desire for someone personable and good with children (of course!), but I would only trust a licensed clinician (psychologist or neuropsychologist) for the actual testing component. Experience wise, someone with a PhD has much more experience, graduate school time, and supervised training than someone with a masters. On top of that, psychological and neuropsychological practices are governed by licensing boards. I have to imagine that a savvy admissions team would frown upon a testing administered by someone who isn't licensed. Consultations are another matter altogether obviously.

Rather than "imagining" what schools would like to see, why not go to their website and use one of their recommended testers? That's exactly how we found Jean Baldwin. IQ tests aren't designed to be subjective, so if the administrator is trained on the test, how does having a phD affect the outcome?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jean Baldwin and Clare Anderson are both great. Jean Baldwin also administers the WPPSI/WISC and works really well with the kids.

It seems a little disturbing that she administers tests. She only has a MA in "psychological services".. whatever that means? She may be a super consultant, but get your testings completed by someone who is licensed!

I'd rather have someone who is good with kids and has experience than someone with a PhD.

I completely hear you on the desire for someone personable and good with children (of course!), but I would only trust a licensed clinician (psychologist or neuropsychologist) for the actual testing component. Experience wise, someone with a PhD has much more experience, graduate school time, and supervised training than someone with a masters. On top of that, psychological and neuropsychological practices are governed by licensing boards. I have to imagine that a savvy admissions team would frown upon a testing administered by someone who isn't licensed. Consultations are another matter altogether obviously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jean Baldwin and Clare Anderson are both great. Jean Baldwin also administers the WPPSI/WISC and works really well with the kids.

It seems a little disturbing that she administers tests. She only has a MA in "psychological services".. whatever that means? She may be a super consultant, but get your testings completed by someone who is licensed!

I'd rather have someone who is good with kids and has experience than someone with a PhD.

Anonymous wrote:Jean Baldwin and Clare Anderson are both great. Jean Baldwin also administers the WPPSI/WISC and works really well with the kids.

It seems a little disturbing that she administers tests. She only has a MA in "psychological services".. whatever that means? She may be a super consultant, but get your testings completed by someone who is licensed!

Jean Baldwin and Clare Anderson are both great. Jean Baldwin also administers the WPPSI/WISC and works really well with the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used Jean Baldwin too. She was great--she recommended schools based our family. Some of those were the usual suspects. Some weren't. And she helped us weed through which schools would have been a bad fit for our family too, so we didn't waste time.

But given how much information you can find online with basic research, how are these people still relevant? Unless you're completely new to the area or have a child with special needs, I'm not sure I understand how they're all that helpful. As a parent, you still need to jump through all of the hoops- interviews, tours, basic application information. I would worry that a consultant's opinion would mess up my head, making our family appear less real and authentic.

PP 20:40 here. I found it useful to have someone who was more familiar with the culture of each schools. I don't actually find the "school information" on these forums to be particularly objective or helpful. What she helped me see was which schools we (and our kid) would feel comfortable at and which we wouldn't. If you know you want to apply to the same 5-6 as everyone else, I wouldn't waste your money. If you think that some of those schools are great and some, culturally and ideologically, would be a less than ideal fit for your family, it can be helpful to have someone to talk to. Especially if you want to understand the exmissions implications of each school or the long term options.

But if you don't want a consultant, by all means, don't hire one. You certainly don't "need" one to be successful in the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here -- no one thinks the school Admissions office sees a family working with a consultant as a 'red flag' for a difficult child/family?

I suspect that the admissions office would have no clue. This is all behind-the-scenes activity. You can liken it to other advantages that some applicants have, like personally knowing board members or staff at the schools.

They know. I've heard that from an admissions person. And its not really an advantage. I know several families that thought it was a total wast of (a lot of) money. What can they do that you can't? I think the only reason to hire one is if you are new to DC and really need advice about schools or if you have some specialized need or concern.

If you need an advisor, it's likely your kid doesn't belong.

Anonymous wrote:We used Jean Baldwin too. She was great--she recommended schools based our family. Some of those were the usual suspects. Some weren't. And she helped us weed through which schools would have been a bad fit for our family too, so we didn't waste time.

But given how much information you can find online with basic research, how are these people still relevant? Unless you're completely new to the area or have a child with special needs, I'm not sure I understand how they're all that helpful. As a parent, you still need to jump through all of the hoops- interviews, tours, basic application information. I would worry that a consultant's opinion would mess up my head, making our family appear less real and authentic.

We used Jean Baldwin too. She was great--she recommended schools based our family. Some of those were the usual suspects. Some weren't. And she helped us weed through which schools would have been a bad fit for our family too, so we didn't waste time.

I used one for my first child because I had just moved here and it was during admission and I didn't realize how few choices there really were. It was the worse money we ever spent. Pick the same six schools that everyone picks, apply, see where you get in, chose from those. Couldn't be easier. At least for the young grades. Maybe it's more subtle in the older grades.