The Suffield Academy controversy could become independent education consulting’s Varsity Blues moment—not because the cases are identical, but because both raise the same question: Does money buy access that other families cannot get?
The Boston Globe’s reporting on Suffield Academy has exposed a troubling overlap between school leadership, trusteeship, and private admissions consulting. The Globe reported that former trustee Lillian Chen and her husband ran a consulting company that promised families it could “ensure admission” to selective American boarding schools. The company also promoted Chen’s position on Suffield’s board, while Suffield’s longtime head of school, Charles Cahn, appeared at company events in China. Chen resigned from the board, and Cahn resigned as head of school on Sunday amid an IRS investigation. The Globe has reported no public evidence that Cahn committed financial wrongdoing, and no evidence that Chen was involved in the IRS investigation. www.bostonglobe.com
The facts are still unfolding. But the ethical question is already plain: Should a family be able to buy privileged access to a school’s decision-makers—and a better chance of admission?
“No one should be able to buy a place in a private school,” said Neil Chyten, founder of Avalon Admission and an independent educational consultant. “Families can pay for thoughtful guidance. They should not be able to pay for influence, special access, or a promise that their child will get in.”
That distinction matters. Good educational consulting helps a student and family understand their options, make a sound plan, and present the student’s real strengths clearly. It does not sell a back door into an admissions office.
“An ethical consultant helps a student make the strongest honest case for admission,” Chyten said. “We don’t control the decision, and we shouldn’t pretend that we do.”
The comparison to the 2019 college admissions scandal—known as Varsity Blues—should be made carefully. That case involved a criminal scheme built around bribery, cheating on entrance exams, and falsely presenting students as recruited athletes. The Justice Department prosecuted dozens of people. The facts reported so far about Suffield do not establish a similar scheme or show that admissions decisions were manipulated. www.justice.gov
A further distinction is important: a school may receive a legitimate gift from a benefactor, and that benefactor’s child may also be a strong candidate because of academic achievement, athletic ability, exceptional talent, or other qualities the school values. The ethical line is crossed when a payment is treated as the price of admission, or when a student’s qualifications become a pretext for buying a place.
“A donation can support a school, but it should never serve as an admissions receipt,” Chyten said. “The student must qualify on the merits under the school’s standards. Wealth should not substitute for those merits.”
Still, the scandals share a warning about public confidence. When wealthy families are told that personal relationships can “ensure admission,” other parents may reasonably wonder whether the process is fair. And when a consultant holds a governance role at a school while marketing access to that school, even the appearance of a conflict can damage trust.
“Admissions should be based on the student’s merits and the school’s judgment about fit,” Chyten said. “The moment a family believes that a board connection or a private payment can change the answer, confidence in the whole process starts to erode.”
That erosion affects reputable consultants, too. Many families do not have a clear way to tell the difference between a counselor who offers guidance and one who sells influence. After a story like this, parents may begin to view the entire profession with suspicion.
“Families should ask direct questions: Are your fees clear? Do you receive money from schools? Do you promise admission or claim personal connections will get a student in?” Chyten said. “If someone promises a result that only the school can decide, that should be a red flag.”
The Independent Educational Consultants Association’s published guidance says its members do not accept fees from schools for placements, and that consultants should not offer to use personal connections to get a student admitted. www.iecaonline.com Those standards reflect a basic principle: the consultant works for the student and family, not for the school and not for a promise of access.
Schools also have a responsibility to make conflicts visible and manage them openly. Board service carries obligations to the institution; it should not become a marketing credential for a private business. Schools that recruit internationally or work with outside advisers should be clear about those relationships, their boundaries, and the safeguards in place.
“The line needs to be simple for families to understand,” Chyten said. “Advice can help a student find the right school and show that school who they are. Money should never let a family skip the line.”
The Suffield story is not yet a complete account of what happened. But it has already put an important question before schools, consultants, and families: Is admissions counseling helping students navigate a demanding process—or selling the impression that wealth can bend it?
That question deserves a firm answer. A family can pay for guidance. It should not be able to buy its way in.