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/