Do admission representatives cross the line?

In the highly lucrative international student market, the line between admission advice versus exploitation is pretty narrow. One of the specific questions raised in a Reuters article was the propriety of college admission staff accepting travel perks to go to China to advise Chinese students on the application processes for U.S. institutions. The article claims that the "advice" in some cases went as far as guidance on admission essay applications.

Dipont Education Management Group, whose focus is helping Chinese students gain access to higher education in the U.S., responded to criticism by joining a research initiative to assess the degree of fraud involved in Chinese student applications. Dipont later withdrew from participation in the fraud study and the future of the project was not clear.

There are a variety of ethical concerns that come to mind:

1. When does providing privileged or inside information to a prospective student bias the selection process in favor of those who can afford to buy the assistance?
2. If students gain admission to an institution where their true credentials don't really qualify them, is that really a help?
3. Does a "pay to play" scheme in gaining admission to preferred institutions benefit the institution or students? Who is the commodity under these circumstances and should either the institution or student be placed in this position?

In order to maintain the integrity of higher education, these and many other questions should be considered carefully.