US thawing on education agents?

A recent article in Inside Higher Ed discussed the debate in the US around the use of education agents and noted the work of the American International Recruitment Council in implementing a certification process for agents who wish to work with its members.

An education agent advises students on study options that are the best fit for them and usually helps the student to gain entry to the educational institution of their choice. Agents operating in offshore markets will often also work as quasi immigration and travel agents, assisting students with visas and other pre-departure arrangements. In some countries 60-80% of students who seek to study abroad are assisted by education agents (NAFSA).

Agents typically get paid a commission by an educational institution when a student is placed successfully. Commission arrangements vary widely but can be in the order of 10-20% of the first year tuition fee.

Educational Institutions in Australia and the UK have been using education agents for years to recruit international students. Even the largest and most reputable Australian universities make extensive use of agents, and their web sites will generally point prospective students to agents in their home country. (See for example University of Sydney)

US universities have largely shunned the practice for two main reasons - a belief that it is prohibited by US law (it's not), and a concern that agents motivated by commission do not act in the best interest of students. The second argument is curious because as the AIRC points out in a recent paper on the issue educational institutions already make extensive use of agents in other fields:

• Headhunters assist with staff recruitment
• Stock brokers manage university endowments
• Real estate agents assist with sale and purchase of property holdings, and
  
• Insurance brokers assist university risk managers

The widespread reluctance to use offshore agents appears to be having an adverse impact on the competitiveness of the US in the international recruitment market. International student enrollments in the US remain largely stagnant, while other markets surge ahead. For example, over the period from 1994 to 2006, enrollments in the US grew 24% from 452,635 to 564,766, while enrollments in Australian institutions grew 364% from 35,290 to 163,930. While the difference is not all down to the use of agents they are a large part of the explanation. An excellent paper by Mitch Leventhal provides more detailed analysis.

The American International Recruitment Council is trying to promote the use of agents by US institutions by establishing best practice standards and a certification process for agents. The proposed six step certification process is as follows:

1. Apply for Certification (pay application fee)
2. IntegraScreen Due Diligence Report (included in application fee)
3. Undertake prescribed AIRC-developed professional development (paid by applicant)
4. Perform a self-study
5. Undergo an external site visit (paid by applicant)
6. Certification Board Review (if approved, payment of membership fee)

Approved agents will also have to apply for re-certification after three years.

The proposed certification process is much more rigorous than the processes currently employed in Australia and the UK. It may mean that only larger, well resourced agents will be able to go through the process, which is probably the outcome the AIRC is aiming for. It is probably also necessary to overcome the widespread concern over use of agents in the US.

Competition for international students continues to increase, both amongst the established players like the UK, Australia and Canada and emerging markets like, Malaysia and Singapore. The US will always attract a large number of international students, but if it wants to increase its market share institutions will have to embrace the use of offshore education agents. The AIRC is leading the horse to water. Time will tell if it can also make it drink.