How do you quantify
“best admissions consultant?“

96%+ at the comprehensive level. No guarantee. Those two things are connected.

Think about what a “guarantee” actually requires a firm to do in practice. It usually means one or more of the following: they’re padding your school list with programs well below your punching weight so they can claim a win — wasting your time and money on applications that don’t serve you. They’re locking you into a minimum package size that includes those safety-school applications by design. Or something shadier is happening that you ultimately don’t want any part of. We find that kind of maneuvering cowardly. We’d rather be the firm that takes on the full range of candidates, applies to schools that actually matter, and lets the quality of our people and our process speak for itself.

What we guarantee is the caliber of the work: experienced consultants, rigorous strategy, and honest feedback whether you want to hear it or not. When you combine that with a smart school list and an application that genuinely represents the candidate at their best, the outcomes follow. But we won’t pretend we control variables no consultant controls, and we won’t engineer a fake safety net at your expense.

Getting into a desired school is one outcome. Developing a sharp, clear sense of what drives you — what you’re good at, what motivates you, what your interests are and why — that’s the outcome that sets you up for life. The sharper that compass is, the better you navigate everything that follows: which opportunities to pursue, how to position yourself professionally, and how to signal potential to the future employers and institutions evaluating you. It’s no coincidence that this kind of clarity correlates positively with admissions outcomes. But for us, the admits are almost a byproduct.

We also care deeply about two things that rarely show up in a firm’s marketing. First: unlocking belief. Many of our clients arrive with a constrained sense of what’s possible for them. Watching someone discover what they’re actually capable of — and then build an application from that version of themselves — is the most rewarding part of this work. Second: sharpening how they think and communicate at a root level. When you coach someone through dozens of iterations on how to make a single point land with more precision and force, that skill doesn’t stay in the essay. It bleeds into how they think about everything. That ripple effect — across interviews, professional writing, how they advocate for themselves for the rest of their careers — is what we consider the real return on this investment.

Yes — with a caveat about how we approach this. We have testimonials up the wazoo, and they’re available on our site across every vertical. If you’d like to speak with a past client directly, and there’s someone who’s open to that conversation and whose situation is relevant to yours, we’ll facilitate the introduction where we can.

That said, we’re always careful about respecting the privacy and time of past clients. They trusted us with a deeply personal process, and we won’t treat them as a sales resource without their enthusiastic consent. What we’d encourage is this: ask us the harder questions directly. What happens when things don’t go according to plan? What does it look like when a student’s top choice says no? How do you handle a client who’s disengaged or behind schedule? The answers to those questions tell you more about a firm than any five-star review.

The blunt analysis would say: more is better. And there is a correlation between comprehensive engagements and higher success rates. But we’d push back on simplistic thinking here, because we don’t do undisciplined pattern detection.

Part of what the data is capturing is self-selection. Clients who invest in comprehensive packages tend to also be more dedicated, more coachable, and more likely to have the qualities that make someone competitive at the highest levels. So it’s not as simple as “buy more and you’ll do better.” If you’ve got the goods and a clear strategy, working with us on ten schools versus five may not be necessary — and we’ll tell you that. Likewise, if your profile isn’t yet competitive for your targets, adding schools and paying us more won’t manufacture a Harvard admit. We’ll be honest about that too.

The one variable we’ve seen that truly cuts through all of this — across every vertical, every profile type, every competitive tier — is starting early. Now, this may also correlate with the kind of person who plans ahead by nature. But in our decades of observing patterns to outcomes, early engagement is the strongest signal. It stands to reason: a thoughtful strategy executed over a real runway, with time to course-correct and develop the candidate’s narrative, simply produces better applications than a compressed sprint ever can. If there’s one piece of advice we’d give before anything else, it’s that.

We share our headline numbers transparently: 96%+ success rate at the comprehensive level, acceptance rates 2.5–3x higher than published school averages, and specific school-level data where the sample size is meaningful.

We’ll also be honest about the limits of the number. Not every client comes to us at the same time, with the same competitive profile, the same target list, or the same level of engagement. So while the success rate is meaningful to people who are prospecting and comparing firms, it isn’t actually the metric that’s most meaningful to us. We wish there were a better way to measure it — one that captured the difficulty of the cases we take on and the distance traveled from where a client started to where they ended up. Until that metric exists, we’ll share what we have, in context, without inflating it. We’re happy to walk through the data in detail during a consultation, including the nuance that makes the numbers real rather than decorative.

All of them. If it’s a school, we can help you get in. We have a strong track record at every Ivy League university, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago, Oxbridge, the UC system, and essentially every top-tier institution in the United States and beyond. On the MBA side: every M7, plus LBS, INSEAD, HEC, and every major domestic program. Law: T14 across the board. Med: top programs nationally.

But the list of logos isn’t really the point. Our service is designed for students who want to punch above their current weight class, wherever that weight class happens to be. Some of our most satisfying outcomes have been getting a student into a school they were told was out of reach — not because we have a secret backdoor, but because we built a strategy and application that made the committee see what we saw. The school names are a byproduct of the process, not the process itself.

Since 2007. Thousands of candidates across college, MBA, law, and medical school admissions — applicants from over 40 countries, every type of high school and undergraduate institution imaginable, and profiles ranging from perfect-on-paper to “I have no idea how to make this work.”

The volume matters because it feeds pattern recognition — the ability to look at a profile and immediately see where the opportunities and risks live. But the longevity matters just as much. What worked in 2016 doesn’t work in 2026. What works this year may not work next year. Staying effective over nearly two decades requires something more than experience — it requires staying plugged into how the landscape is actually shifting, communicating internally about what we’re observing in real time, and most importantly, thinking critically about what’s real versus what’s noise. Every admissions cycle produces a wave of sensational headlines and breathless takes that don’t always translate to what’s actually happening in committee rooms. We’ve learned to read the signal, not the headline, and that discipline is baked into how we advise every client.