INTERNATIONAL STUDENT RECRUITMENT

A Critical Review – EDG 671

             In May 2011 the national Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) proposed a decision to forbid its members to use commissioned-based agents to recruit international students abroad (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2011).  Enrollment numbers across American colleges and universities continue to drop and as institutions look for ways to increase numbers, they look globally.  Federal law prohibits the use of commissioned-based recruiting agents for American students, and many NACAC members feel this should be the case for international students as well (Jaschik, 2012).  Those who support the “purchasing” of this service argue that “agents are cost-effective and can best assist foreign students because they speak the same language and understand the local culture” while critics argue that recruiters (agents) are more interested in making money than what is in the best interest of the student or the institution (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2011).  The action proposed by NACAC brought with it such controversy that the organization decided to convene a commission to review the subject and make recommendations back to the group.  The commission met this past March (2012) to hear presentations from various interested parties and will reconvene in October.  Among others, the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed have followed this current event, and these hearings, and have posted several articles on the subject.

           

             Forefront in supporting the use of agents is Mitch Leventhal, founder of the American International Recruitment Council (AIRC) and current Vice Chancellor of Global Affairs at the State University of New York (SUNY).  AIRC, founded in 2009, developed standards of good practice and a system for certifying oversees recruiters.  Mr. Leventhal has been very vocal in his support and submitted a blog, Engaging With Agents, a year ago June.  In his blog, Leventhal (2011) discusses how over the past ten years the use of hired agents to recruit oversees students has become commonplace.  Leventhal (2011) implies that EducationUSA, a resource of The Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), does not have the “geographic reach” or the “range of services” most (foreign) students require.  On their website, educationusa.state.gov, EducationUSA advertises 400 educational advising centers and a host of services.  Their mission is to “actively promote U.S. higher education around the world by offering accurate, unbiased, comprehensive, objective and timely information about educational institutions in the United States and guidance to qualified individuals on how best to access those opportunities” (EducationUSA).

According to Leventhal (2011), AIRC was formed by U.S. accredited colleges and universities as a nonprofit Standard Development Organization “to address known deficiencies in the higher education marketplace through the adoption of ethical standards and enforceable certification of recruitment agencies.”  AIRC boasts a membership of 135 (as of June 2011) from community colleges to Ivy leagues.  Leventhal (2011) asserts that AIRC has established itself as internationally recognized as both creating ethical practice guidelines and industry norms but also in enforcing them.  He compares AIRC (is to agents) to accrediting bodies (are to colleges).  Leventhal (2011) accuses those in support of discontinuing the use of agents (NACAC) as being “disengaged from regulatory processes already under way” and not having any practical alternatives to offer. 

In March (2012) the NACCAC commission panel heard arguments on both sides of the debate as they tried to move forward toward associating its divided members.  Scott Jaschik (2012) reports that after hearing testimonies from embassy officials from China, Australia, and Britain, who use paid recruiting agents, the commission asked theses delegates whether there were any ethical issues “inherent to the use of agents”, and they said there were not.  The Chinese delegate claimed China did not have issues with the use of for-profit commissioned agents (Jaschik, 2012).  Jaschik (2012) reports that Australian delegate described regulations and laws that govern the use of agents in her country.  In Australia, universities must prove that they are dealing with reputable agents.  Their agents must have written agreements describing in detail their dealings with the agent, and employ an ombudsman to handle the complaints.  When asked if someone manages these requirements, she responded that many people are employed to do so (Jaschik, 2012).  Jaschik (2012) reports that David Bergeron, deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation at the U.S. Education Department, suggested that federal policy should “discourage the use of agents.”  Mr. Bergeron explained that policy should be looked at to ensure that international students be recruited to have the “best possible experience” and feels that this will more likely happen when recruiters don’t have ties to specific institutions.  Government should encourage best practices rather than just paying for warm bodies (Jaschik, 2012).  Jaschik (2012) quotes Josep Rota, AIRC, as having said, “Pretending that agents are not involved is a denial of reality.”  Instead, Rota recommends regulation.

In a recent article by Karin Fischer, Mr. Leventhal continues his advocacy in a panel discussion at a March meeting of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, stating that by hiring and regulating agents American institutions have greater control of the recruitment process (Fischer, 2012).  According to Fischer (2012), Leventhal and others argue that by discontinuing the use of commissioned-based agents, American colleges will be at a competitive disadvantage.

Fischer (2012) reports that federal law states agencies should defer to industry-based standards (like those set forth by AIRC), unless those standards are illegal or impractical.  When the department issued a policy prohibiting it’s overseas student-advising centers (EducationUSA) to work with commission-based agents Mr. Leventhal accused the department as “wrongly superseding the authority of AIRC, which is registered with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission as a standards-development organization” (Fischer, 2012).  The law states that the State Department has to report to the White House a reason explaining why their policy should replace an industry-set standard.  Fischer reports that Meghann Curtis, Deputy Assistant secretary for academic programs at the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, responded that there is a lack of consensus on the use of agents.  In a written statement Curtis responds "To meet the State Department's public-diplomacy mission, EducationUSA provides comprehensive information to international students about the entire range of accredited U.S. colleges, universities, and programs in our effort to help students find the best possible match with their abilities, needs, and interests. Working with commission-based recruiters is inconsistent with this public-diplomacy mission." (Fischer, 2012)

In conclusion, there are two sides to this issue.  On one side there are those who support the use of commissioned-based recruiting agents.  Their main argument is that other countries regulate and use agents and report no issues with the practice.  They assert that without agents, America loses its competitive edge. They ask that the State Department allow AIRC to work with EducationUSA advising centers and paid agents to ensure that recruiters adhere to ethical industry-based standards.  Supporters believe that with standards set and followed, the ethical standards would be met and international students would get the best experience they could.  American institutions would remain competitive in the global marketplace.  They maintain that Agents who live in the countries can better serve the students and their families, as they know the culture.  If institutions don’t pay, the families will bear the brunt of the cost of hiring an (non sanctioned) Agent.  In other words, without regulation, black-market practices would emerge. 

The opposing side argues that because agents are for-profit they act in their own best interest rather than the student’s.  They assert that agents restrict student options to those institutions that offer commissions and encourage students to go to institutions to meet a quota (Fischer, 2012). This seemingly unethical practice could harm the reputation of American education abroad.

There is much work to be done in order to lessen the chasm of these polar opinions.  The NACCAC commission hearings have raised more questions than provided answers.  Are agents acting unethically?  Is AIRC a sophisticated enough body to ensure that ethical standards are met?  Has the government overstepped?  I find I am on the fence with this topic.  It is clear that international student enrollment is profitable and there seems to be no shortage of market.  It is fiscally and globally strategic to solve this dilemma so that both American colleges and universities and international students can profit from the relationship.  Perhaps the October meeting will bring further discovery to light and the sides will inch closer together.

REFERENCES

EducationUSA. (n.d.). Education USA. Retrieved July 8, 2012, from U.S. Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: http://educationusa.state.gov/

Fischer, K. (2012, June 1). State Dept. Draws Criticism Over Policy on Paid Recruiters of Foreign Students. Retrieved July 7, 2012, from The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/article/State-Dept-Draws-Criticism/132099/

Jaschik, S. (2012, March 6). Commission Considers Arguments About International Recruiting Agents. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: http://www.insidehighered.com/print/news/2012/03/06/commission-cons...ut-international-recruiting-agents?width=775&height=500&iframe=true

Leventhal, M. (2011, June 23). Engaging with Agents. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: http://www.insidehighered.com

The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2011, June 16). The Chronicle of Higher Education - Commentary. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from chronical.com: http://chronicle.com/article/International-Student/127931/