With efforts to internationalize and diversify student populations, recruiting international students seems to be one of the most common goals for colleges and universities. According to internetlivestats.com, as of February 2016, the world has more than 3.3 billion Internet users, so e-recruitment may be one of the most popular and cost-effective methods for international student recruitment. Recruiting through EducationUSA, participating in recruitment fairs, or using agents are other methods for increasing international student enrollment.

The use of agents, individuals, or companies is a common approach for higher education institutions in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada (West & Addington, 2014). Many intensive English programs (IEPs) in the United States have long used agents to recruit international students (Hamrick, 2006). As I educated myself about the practice of utilizing agents to recruit international students, I noted the information presented below for my later reference and for those who would like to have some insights into the practice. What follows is a review of various types of agents, compensation rates, benefits of using agents, challenges of working with agents, and associations that seek to ensure ethical and quality international student recruitment using agents.

Types of Agents

Di Maria (2014) classified agents based on three criteria: recruitment territory, philosophy of recruiting, and model of business operation. Regarding recruitment territory, agents can be local (recruiting in one area of a country), national (recruiting in one particular country), international (recruiting in one specific world region, e.g., Southeast Asia, Latin America), or global (recruiting students all over the world).

In terms of recruitment philosophy, agents can act as:

• consultants, helping institutions with planning and implementing marketing strategies;
• counselors, showing students a wide variety of possible institutions to help them find ones that fit their needs;
• headhunters, steering students toward specific institutional partners regardless of institutional fit; or
• proxies, who (a) serve as an extension of the institution or (b) serve as consultants, counselors, or headhunters “with exclusive control within a defined territory” (Di Maria, 2014, p. 2).
  
  

With respect to models of business operations, as Di Maria (2014) described, agents may use incentive-based commissions (paid per number of students placed at a partner institution), market allowances (receiving money from the institution to build the institution’s brand), client fees (charging students for the services provided), or a hybrid of the models mentioned.

Of particular concern is the client fee model of business because there are issues regarding possible unethical practices when students may be required to give up part of their scholarships. Some agents may threaten not to give students their I-20/DS2019 should they not give up part of their scholarships(Di Maria, 2014). Some other agents may charge both students and the institutions where they place the students. Unscrupulous agents may also charge students fees they claim to be required by the institutions to make money on the students they deal with. Because of the potential unethical practices, this model of business operation is under careful examination (Di Maria, 2014).

Compensation Rates

Compensation rates vary depending on institutions and agencies. In the United Kingdom, 139 out of 158 higher education institutions use agents, and the average amount paid to agents is about $2,678 per student (Havergal, 2015). According to Di Maria (2014), whereas public institutions pay agents 10% of recruited students’ tuition in the first year, private institutions may pay agents up to 25% of tuition each year. In two informal interviews I conducted, while one IEP paid $1,000 per student for the first semester, another program paid 10% of the recruited students’ tuition to agents over the time the students matriculate.

Arguments for the Use of Agents

EducationUSA (policy guidance, n.d.) explicitly discourages their advisers from partnering with any agents for the reason that agents who receive commission “cannot be expected to give priority to a student’s need to explore the full range of options provided by the diversity of U.S. higher education.” Despite such a caution, there are good reasons for the use of agents. Di Maria (2014, p. 5) provided two good points about using agents:

• From a business standpoint, the basic premise behind offering a percentage of tuition paid is that it is better to receive some revenue than none.
• From an enrollment standpoint, the commission payment represents a small price to pay to recruit students who have desirable attributes (e.g., certain GPA and test scores), which add to the quality of the incoming class and as a result help improve rankings, retention, and so on.
  
  

Other reasons offered by Di Maria (2014) are cited below:

1. Agents act as a year-round, in-country contact.
2. Agents know local languages and cultures, and can assist institutions with translation, interpretation, marketing strategies.
3. Agents can access areas university staff are unable to visit due to financial or safety concerns.
4. Agents help institutions recruit students who can meet institutional requirements (e.g., GPA).
5. Agents help institutions by organizing meetings with local educators or officials and assisting with travel logistics.
6. Using an incentive-based commission model often yields a very high return on investment for educational programs and institutions.
   
   

Regarding empirical research, Kirsch (2014) found from a survey of 118 international educators that working with agents can provide benefits to institutions, such as increased international student applications and enrollment, increased in-country presence, the ability to recruit students from one or more than one countries where the school has not been successful in recruiting students, and support at recruitment trips and fairs.

Arguments Against the Use of Agents

EducationUSA (policy guidance, n.d.) has a point about being careful regarding the use of agents, as there are some possible issues. Di Maria (2014, p. 4) noted the challenges of using agents. Agents may:

1. Provide misleading information to lead students to the highest paying institution.
2. Misrepresent their institutional partners or the relationship they have with institutions.
3. Take advantage of those unfamiliar with working with agents (e.g., signing an exclusive agreement and purposefully failing to perform to keep an institution entirely out of the market).
4. Charge students additional fees unknown to the institution while claiming that the fees are required by the institution.
5. Need constant attention by requiring training, performance tracking, and financial administration.
6. Invoice the institution for students they have not placed.
7. Engage in unscrupulous activities that damage the institution.
   
   

In her survey research, Kirsch (2014) found that the international educators she surveyed reported some challenges with agents including: misinformed, misrepresented, and unprepared students; document and application fraud; and contractual issues. Using agents is no panacea for international student recruitment. The key is, however, to be cognizant of both the benefits as well as the drawbacks to make the best use of this recruitment method if it is ever considered for adoption.

Professional Associations and Accreditation Standards

Organizations such as NAFSA, the National Association for College Admission and Counseling, and American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers have statements of ethical practices to guide institutions in using agents. For IEPs, University and College Intensive English Programs and EnglishUSA have guidelines and standards related to the use of agents. Noticeably, the founding of the American International Recruitment Council in 2008 seems to have served as a milestone in ensuring ethical, quality, standardized international student recruitment using agents. As of May 2015, AIRC has 247 U.S. accredited postsecondary institution members and 72 certified agents all over the world. To be certified, an agent must go through a process similar to that of accreditation, in which the agent is prescreened to see if they seem to be in compliance; the agent completes a self-study, and external reviewers who are U.S. member institutions and organizations conduct a site visit to verify the accuracy of the statements made in the self-study. The establishment of AIRC may be considered a step forward in agent quality assurance control.

Concluding Remarks

Employing agents to recruit international students is certainly not a means of recruitment all programs and institutions use, but it may be one of the most effective ways to break into specific markets. Even educational institutions that do not work with agents still receive applications from students who work through agents; it is, therefore, good practice to communicate an institutional or departmental position on the involvement of agents in student advisement and application (West & Addington, 2014).

References

Di Maria, D. L. (2014). Successful relationships with recruiting agents: Essential considerations. Washington, DC: NAFSA.

EducationUSA Policy Guidance (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.educationusa.info/pdf/Policy_Guidance_for_EducationUSA_Centers.pdf

Hamrick, J. (2006). Ethical practice in recruiting for intensive English programs. In R. Kallur & M. Reeves (Eds.), Guidelines for ethical practices in international student recruitment(pp. 16–21). NAFSA. Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/ACE/guidelines_for_ethical%281%29.pdf?n=2584

Havergal, C. (2015). Agents paid an average of £1,767 per on-EU recruit. The Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/agents-paid-an-average-of-1767-per-non-eu-recruit/2018613.article

Internetlivestats (2016, February 23). Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/

Kirsch, E. M. (2014). The use of agents in international student recruitment: International education professional’s opinions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Capstone Collection: SIT Institute. (Paper 2635). Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3666&context=capstones

West, E., & Addington, L. (2014). International student recruitment agencies: A guide for schools, colleges and universities. Arlington, VA: National Association for College Admission Counseling. Retrieved from http://www.nacacnet.org/international/documents/intlstudentrecruitment.pdf

Thu Tran serves as the Student Program Administrator of the Intensive English Program at Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA. He holds an MA in TESOL from the University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia and a doctorate in TESOL from Alliant International University, San Diego, California. His research interests include vocabulary acquisition and instruction, faculty professional development, second language assessment, and curriculum and materials development.