Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
US is poised to stop worrying and embrace overseas agents
13 August 2009
World's largest offshore recruiter may cast off doubts as market hots up, writes Phil Baty
The US is poised to seize an even greater share of the lucrative international student market as its universities wake up to the potential of using overseas recruiting agents.
A report this week from the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education says that the US has established itself as the world's largest recruiter of international students without any help from the agents that its rivals have long relied upon.
But the report states that the "tide may be about to turn" and the US could be set to embrace agents for the first time.
It says: "Some American colleges' officials now believe that the use of offshore recruiting agents makes increasing sense. Foreign students are recognised as an important means to internationalise their campuses and to close their budget gaps through the higher tuition fees these students often pay.
"Although the US remains the most popular destination for international students, other countries with more aggressive recruitment strategies have steadily cut into the US market share in the past decade."
According to the latest figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, the US had 623,800 overseas students in 2007-08, compared with 389,330 in the UK.
While the use of agents to attract overseas students is widespread in the UK, it has been extremely rare in the US. American law bans the payment of agents in the domestic recruitment market, which has led to a widespread misconception that overseas agents are also banned, says the report, Leading the Horse to Water.
There have also been lingering ethical concerns in the US about the use of agents, because there is a perception that "when recruiters are being paid ... their first priority may often be their own financial gain, rather than the student's interest", the report says. "In addition, it is difficult for university administrators to ensure that their offshore agents are not misrepresenting their institutions abroad."
However, the report adds that ethical concerns "may now be about to turn", with plans for US regulation of the agency market.
Benefit all players
The American International Recruitment Council (AIRC), a non-profit body, is drawing up a set of ethical standards and a system for certifying foreign recruiters, the report says.
It has begun a pilot certification programme with an initial group of eight foreign recruitment agencies, including firms operating in China, Denmark, Germany, India and Thailand.
One participant in the pilot scheme is IDP Education, Australia's largest international student recruitment company, which has 850 staff in 75 offices based in 24 countries.
IDP announced in May that it would be branching out to help US institutions. It aims to have 60 American bodies on its books in time to recruit students for the 2010-11 academic year. A week after IDP declared its move, Hobsons, an international education services firm, said it would offer recruitment services to US institutions.
Mitch Leventhal, chair of the AIRC and vice-provost for international affairs at the University of Cincinnati, said: "I think that US numbers will substantially increase due to the adoption of agency-based recruiting, which is being aggressively adapted to the US education system.
"Whether the US will increase its market share will depend on the growth of the market overall, combined with the marketing success of major competitors - the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on."
But he added that the use and regulation of agents by the US could benefit all players.
"I believe that this new situation points to the need for more collaboration between UK and US institutions in the development of combined or joint programmes, whereby both sides can benefit from this new market reality," he said.
Don Olcott, chief executive of the Observatory, who has spent 25 years in US higher education, was more cautious about the likely effects on the international market.
He pointed out that while international students account for 25 per cent of total higher education enrolment in Australia and about 15 per cent in the UK, the US figure is only 3.5 per cent - so American institutions do not rely on the international market for survival.
"The fact is that the majority of the 4,130 colleges and universities in the US are not dependent on international students," he said.
"Yes, you will have some that may use agents and some who more aggressively recruit international students in general, but one would need to look specifically at these institutions and where they fall on the overall quality and reputation (spectrum of the US sector)."
He suggested that most US universities would still be reluctant to "risk any unnecessary impact on their quality and excellence frameworks by engaging in what is still a questionable practice. The law says universities can use agents for foreign recruitment, but that raises the old adage: 'Just because you can doesn't mean you should'."
phil.baty@tsleducation.com.
Readers' comments
I wish to comment on Mr Don's apprehensions. Though it's clear from the data that the % of international student enrolements in US is much lower compare to other countries, the fact is more and more US students are cheated by small time agetns than the other countries. If you look at the kind of agents being working for the US universities and rest of the world, the quality of agents working for US is much lower. One of the major reasons behind this situation is no good agent wishes to get in there in its current mode of operations. Small agents charge huge money from students to help them in processes using the fact that they will not get any money from the institution. It is important to have quality control over agents however their role is very important as Indian students still need much help in selecting the university and processing their admission. If students stop needing this help, agents role will go away automatically. Agents existance shows that students need them. Its best to regulate agents than getting away from them. Its only a fraction of this community which is cheating students in the absence of open communication.
The truth is students from countries like India and China need not come to West. These countries have hundreds of universities. The reason why they do is that they still think that the roads in the West are paved with gold, plenty of jobs etc.. which is not true. They come and do work in fast food joints and elsewhere, the kind of work they do not even imagine in their own countries.
The agents are the villains many of them are nothing but crooks. The West holds so much atrraction for them. Some one should tell thse students to stay put in their countries and go to universities there.
This article has no mention of EducationUSA, which is a program sponsored by the U.S. Department of State to support international students in reaching U.S. higher education. For U.S. institutions who engage this network of 450 Educational Advisers worldwide, EducationUSA can replace the work of agents while providing services to both the students and universities completely free of charge. Regulating agents may be an answer to helping meet the needs of some international students, but I don't see agents as necessary when a free and high quality service exists worldwide that provides comprehensive and personalized assistance to students. Perhaps universities should focus their energy in establishing close working relationships with EducationUSA Centers rather than negotiating the use of for-profit agents.
I believe that EducationUSA advising centers are a valuable and essential means to extending information to thousands of prospective students worldwide, and US institutions should work closely with EducationUSA. However, the simple fact is that EducationUSA cannot be in all places, and it cannot always provide the level of personalized service that many students (and their parents) need when attempting to navigate the complicated maze of applications and regulations associated with study abroad which, after all, represents a sizeable investment and significant risk for the family.
AIRC encourages close collaboration of US institutions with EducationUSA. However, we would also like to see EducationUSA engage with an important process to elevate the professional practice of recruitment agents, and contribute to building a more robust and ethical recruiting environment.
What is the real situation in a few words?
The truth is.. , the problem you mentioned is probably widespread only in the UK due to low quality institutions that accept these students in the first place. Before you start pointing fingers, look at the core of the problem. Why not save yourself a step and ask why such students are in the UK in the first place? Perhaps the problem you mentioned are somehow connected to the slew of educational agents from the UK and Australia. Incidentally, most students from India and China flock to the US to study.
I think US universities have to be EXTREMELY careful how they go about this. I have taught at US universities, and I have taught test preparation and language classes for such an education consultancy in Kathmandu, Nepal, and by and large it is a total scam. The place where I worked, for example, the counselors, advising a student who wanted to go to Australia to get a Master's Degree in sociology, tried to get her to go to a university where to study for a Master's in Socia Work. They tried to tell her that there was no difference between the two degrees. Why? Because the Australian university pays a percentage of the student's tuition fees (around 10 - 15% of one year) as a kick back to the agency or agent for sending the student.
The same thing happens already with US universities - by and large the majority of students from many foreign countries go to lower tier US universities and colleges that are having problems with recruitment in the ever more competitive college recruitment scene. So they make sure that they accept less capable students from abroad, those will low IELTS or TOEFL scores, and offer kickbacks to foreign agencies IF they can provide students in number.
As for the foreign consultancies themselves, I can only say that teaching classes at one of these places was like teaching in one room while the room outside, where the "consultants" work, was like a used car salesroom. The "agents" I worked with didn't know much of anything about the US education system, college rankings and degrees offered - they steered students towards schools which would, the agents hoped, eventually start to pay the consultancy. Even students with high test scores, and GPAs, were steered towards schools which would provide kickbacks for each student. Many students are steered towards degree mills. Many of the agencies also try to offer work visas, or bribe people to get them - you only have to ask the US Embassy in Kathmandu for scams involving visa applicatoins, and you will find out that a great deal of them involve education consultancies.
The agencies charge around 300 dollars for a package that includes test prep classes and admissions application BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE any of the admissions fees. Many agents are functionally illiterate in English - they might as well be writing college apps in crayon, and the students are not much better off. Its a very corrupt system. Kathmandu has hundreds of these agencies, with only a handful of trustworthy ones.
I think that unless colleges and universities agree NOT TO PAY KICKBACKS, and unless the countries involved have some rigorous system of vetting these so-called education consultancies, the US should not use overseas recruiters. Many of them charge much more - up to 500 $ for the course/admission package. Its a total scam. In Nepal there is no system of guaranteeing that the consultancy is legit. For one, the agents should have to have a degree in education or a related field. They should also be able to score above a certain level on the IELTS or TOEFL test themselves. At the place where I worked, no one could have passed it, and the head of the consultancy proudly featured some US universities as institutions which he represented which were just this side of degree mills.
Mr. Leventhal's proposed regulation is not a solution. It is a sign of the many problems with using agents. If there were no problems with it, we wouldn't need regulation. The proposed regulations are so extensive, it makes me realize just how many issues and problems there are that need such regulating.
Further, regulating something doesn't suddenly make it ok to do. For example, some countries choose to regulate corrupt industries as a way of controlling it (eg. prostitution), but does that change the nature of the activity or solve all the problems that go with it?
Although both sides / factions in this debate are entitled to their positions, I seriously doubt that any one side is fully or primarily responsible for what is occurring here in our society at this point. It's probably 50/50 or 51/49 at worst. However, I am reasonably sure that continuing to argue and fight about it, without actually addressing the underlying root problems, will not advance anyone's interests. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ybbrep7">We all should Try Harder</a>.
It is good to hear that US is poised to embrace overseas agents.
I agree with Shahina Khan point of view.
I think they should regulate agents taking references from ICEF OR agents dealing with UK universties. Also mandatory to have company Healthcheck under Business Express Programme, by International Agency - IntegraScreen Pte Ltd.
Firstly, I suggest that USA Universities / Colleges should accept soft copies of Application with academic documents. This will reduce the cost of sending Bulking documents via courier. In the name of courier charges many Agents charges money as courier charges.
Secondly, all USA Universities / colleges should pay Agents their commission for their services toward successful students enrollment.
I feel USA Universties should think on this matters.
We have started working with US educational institutions and it seems to be working fine. I had no doubt at all about the positive outcome of such relationship which has been hugely successful with other counterparts in Australia, UK, Canada for years.
I am very well aware of AIRC actitivites and what Mitch has been trying to achieve. I appreciate the initiative as agents are usually working in unregulated market. Unscrupulous activities are the main concern in markets like where I am working in. However, institutions are also responsible in many aspects.
AIRC can bring the order and discipline by providing references to institutions regarding who to work with after they themselves are satisfied with the quality and assurance of ethical practice of the agents.
I am hoping to attend the ICEF workshop in Miami in December and it would be great to know more about AIRC certification.
Having studied in the US myself in late 80's, I feel that this is a great step...this will benefit students and also the agents and the agents would be able to offer more choice. I hope transpiracy will be maintained and genuine Agents are offered this status.
Warm Wishes !
Amaresh Shanker
Head Office: Since 1992
Amaresh Shanker (Rotary Scholar,USA)
Director,
Target Counselling Services ( Member, AAERI )
Suite # 611, Jagat Trade Center (6th Floor),
Fraser Road, Patna 800001 Bihar
INDIA
Cell # + 91 9835089209
Phone : + 91 612 2214162 / 2204294
Fax : + 91 612 2675273
E-mail: amareshs@yahoo.com / amareshshanker@yahoo.com
Represents Universities / Institutions from Switzerland, United Kingdom, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Singapore, Ireland,Australia etc.etc
The Australian Education system has been working positively for a number of years towards ensuring student recruitment agents are well informed and conducting their business in an ethical manner.
Up until a few years ago, individual institutions paid commissions to Education Agents upon successful enrolments regardless of whether a formal contract existed between the two parties or not. This has all changed.
Now it is unlikely for an agent to be paid if there is no contract in place. Contracts are only awarded to agents after scrupulous background checks have been undertaken and, in some cases, after Agents have been fully trained by the Institution and/or visited by staff members. In addition, Australian institutions , and subsequently, their Agents, are required by law to understand the inplications of the ESOS Act which stipulates a code of conduct as it applies to the recruitment of international students. See here http://www.aei.gov.au/AEI/ESOS/QuickInfo/Easy_Guide_to_ESOS_pdf.pdf
To supplement this new regulatory environment, and in recognition of the benefits to Students, Institutions and Agents, the Australian Government has now implemented an Agent's Training Course that aims to inform Agents of basic aspects of Australian life, history, education structures and ethics. Upon completion of this online course, Agents then sit an exam and, if successful, are awarded PIER recognition. The idea is that schools can then select PIER recognised Agents for particular markets, knowing that the Agent is well informed about where they will send students and that the Agent will perform in an ethical manner at the risk of losing recognition. You can view the website here http://pieronline.org/eatc/default.aspx?page=login
In conclusion, Agents need not be demonised. It is possible to use Agents to supplement your regular marketing team in a cost effective manner and to ensure that your institution is using high quality Agents as long as you are prepared to spend time and resources in training and developing strong relationships with us, Just take a look at the Australian model.
http://www.sangambayard-c-m.com
In response to comment from, 'Regulation is a symptom not a cure' 1 September, 2009
You make a good point; Regulating something doesn't suddenly make it OK to do.
That said, your example; Prostitution, is a great example of a practice that will not eventually 'go away' just because it is deemed undesirable or unethical. It is ''the oldest trade in the world''.
Furthermore, it is clear that regulation in this industry makes great sense for all parties involved, and has been proven time and again to be effective and worthwhile. (I'm sure you would, in theory, take an Amsterdam whore over a King's Cross hooker any day...)
So, whilst I might agree that regulation is a symptom and not a cure, let's at least try our best to do things better if we can?
Disclaimer: All user contributions posted on this site are those of the user ONLY and NOT those of TSL Education Ltd or its associated trademarks, websites and services. TSL Education Ltd does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with any comments, opinions or statements or other content provided by users.