Is it better to have a bad counsellor than no counsellor at all?

There is a question that is rarely addressed openly in our profession, perhaps because it is uncomfortable: is it better for a student to have a bad university guidance counsellor or no counsellor at all?

This is not a binary designed to provoke criticism, but an invitation to reflect on the nature of our influence and the ethical weight of our role.

The power – and the responsibility

In education, there is a widely held assumption that some guidance is always better than none. In university counselling, however, this assumption deserves closer scrutiny.

University counsellors occupy a uniquely influential position in schools. For many students – particularly those navigating international pathways or those who are the first in their families to apply abroad – counsellors are trusted promoters of a complex and often unclear system. This trust carries ethical implications.

The role of a counsellor extends beyond managing applications or meeting deadlines. It involves shaping how students understand their own potential and the opportunities available to them. This requires:

• A commitment to accuracy in an evolving admissions landscape
• Continuous professional development
• An awareness of personal and institutional biases
• A student-centred approach that prioritises exploration over limitation.

Ethical responsibility in counselling is not only about what we recommend, but also about what we omit. The universities we do not mention, the pathways we do not explain and the questions we do not ask can be just as influential as the advice we give.

In the absence of formal counselling, students often turn to alternative sources: online platforms, peer networks, alumni communities or private advisers. This route is not ideal and raises important questions about equity. Not all students have equal access to reliable information or external support.

However, it can also lead to a form of self-directed exploration that is not constrained by a single guiding perspective. Students may cast a wider net, question assumptions and take greater ownership of their decision-making.

This presents a difficult but important distinction: while the absence of counselling creates gaps, inadequate counselling can create limitations. One leaves uncertainty; the other may unintentionally impose boundaries.

Consequences beyond admissions outcomes

Inadequate guidance does not simply mean limited support. It can mean:

• Outdated or inaccurate information about admissions requirements
• Risk-averse recommendations that do not reflect a student’s full academic potential
• Institutional bias based on familiarity rather than fit
• Missed opportunities to introduce students to a wider range of pathways.

In these cases, the issue is not absence, but influence. Unlike a lack of counselling, which may leave space for independent exploration, misinformation or incomplete guidance can actively narrow a student’s horizon, often without the student’s realising it.

The success of university counselling is often measured in offers received or destinations secured. Yet the longer-term consequences of guidance, whether effective or inadequate, are less visible. Students who receive limited or misaligned guidance may:

• Underestimate their academic competitiveness
• Apply to a narrower or less appropriate range of institutions
• Miss scholarship opportunities or specialised programmes
• Develop a constrained sense of what is achievable.

These outcomes do not always appear as failures. Many students will still progress to higher education. However, their trajectories may reflect what was presented to them, rather than what was possible. Over time, this can influence not only academic pathways but also ambition and long-term career direction.

A profession under pressure

It is important to acknowledge that these challenges do not arise in isolation. Counsellors are often working with significant structural constraints: high student-to-counsellor ratios, limited access to training and the expectation that they will cover multiple roles in a school.

In many contexts, university counselling is still an emerging function, without consistent standards or institutional support. This makes the conversation not one of individual fault, but of systemic responsibility.

If we are to take seriously the impact of our work, we must be willing to engage in honest reflection as a professional community. This includes asking:

• How do we ensure that our guidance expands, rather than narrows, student opportunity?
• What support systems are in place to help counsellors stay informed?
• How can schools align expectations with realistic caseloads and resources?
• What mechanisms exist for feedback, accountability and ongoing development?

These questions are not easy, but they are essential if we are to move from access to quality.

From presence to purpose

The expansion of university counselling provision globally has been an important step forward. More students now have access to structured support than ever before.

However, access alone is not sufficient. What matters is whether that support is:

• Accurate and up to date
• Broad in perspective and inclusive of diverse pathways
• Responsive to individual student contexts
• Grounded in a clear understanding of the ethical dimensions of the role.

The presence of a counsellor should not simply fill a structural requirement. It should serve a meaningful purpose in expanding students’ awareness of what is possible.

Ultimately, the question is not whether a bad counsellor is better than none. It is whether we, as a profession, are prepared to examine the impact of our guidance with honesty. Because for students navigating increasingly complex global pathways, the difference is not simply between having support or not. It is between being guided towards possibility or quietly steered away from it.