I recently read an interesting article on University World News – Internationalisation should be ethical and for all.
The author is Professor Hans de Wit, Director of the Center for International Higher Education, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
The focus of the article is internationalisation – the process of increasing involvement of enterprises in international markets.
At the outset I should say that I contacted Hans to raise with him the issues that I have discussed below. He very kindly took the time to respond and I have included his further thoughts and responses below where relevant.
International Education – the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’
The article describes a trend towards division between two groups of universities:
- ‘World-class universities’ with everything going for them – well resourced, global brands, well located, and lots of students.
- ‘Others’ – facing diminishing budgets, poorer quality students, and located outside a main metropolitan center.
The world-class universities have all the advantages, and for them internationalisation, and the benefits that go with it, happens almost as a matter of course.
For the ‘others’ on the other hand, faced with a range of challenges, internationalisation is ‘unrealistic’. However, the ‘others’ want their piece of the international education pie, and so ‘invest in agents, pathway programmes and recruitment of international students… all in a desperate attempt to become part of the world-class, well-ranked elite.’
The article goes on:
These universities see their numbers of local students shrinking and pay high bonuses to agents and other commercial providers to bring in rich Chinese, Indians and Koreans, ignoring the increasing number of cases of incompetence, fraud and corruption that go with that trade.
Education agents are a problem
The article then describes several serious incidents of fraud and corruption by education agents in the US market.
It notes recent research by Bridge/StudentMarketing which shows that the use of agents by US universities is on the rise, while at the same time a majority of the US institutions surveyed said that they were worried about fraud when working with education agents.
The top three reasons identified in the survey for not using agents are: a lack of trust in agents; the reputational risk posed by working with third-party agents; and financial reasons. Lack of accountability, integrity and transparency are all seen as major concerns.
The proposed solution is quite radical:
It would be in the interests of governments, universities and students if the participation of commercial recruiters, for-profit pathway providers and other intermediate businesses was stopped.
But it accepts that “is not likely to happen.”
The article concludes:
The current political and economic climate needs measures which enhance mutual understanding and cooperation, not further divisions [i.e. between ‘world-class universities’ and the ‘others]. More than ever, internationalisation needs to be for all, and for local institutions and their students and staff – and it must be ethical.
Some thoughts in response…
1. Why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
The suggestion that the use of education agents and pathway providers should be stopped seems quite extreme.
Agency relationships are ubiquitous in the commercial world. A car dealer sells cars on behalf of the manufacturer, mortgage brokers sell loans on behalf of banks, and there are many other examples that we can think of in our daily lives.
Unfortunately, where there are agency relationships you will find fraud and corruption. We have all heard of dodgy car dealers, and it wasn’t that long ago that widespread fraud and corruption in the mortgage broking industry very nearly blew up the global economy. Yet we still have car dealers and mortgage brokers.
The response generally has not been to say that the agency model itself is broken, but to consider better controls to protect consumers. That might mean stronger government regulation, better industry self regulation, and/or principals taking more responsibility for the conduct of their agents.
The same applies to education agents. Fraud and corruption are certainly a very serious concern, but the answer can’t be to ban agents and pathway providers. Their role in the market is too significant.
Instead the focus should be on the best combination of controls to protect both students and institutions.
In his email to me Hans expressed the view that “indeed agents are internationally part of the system. It is for that reason that we have to be critical about potential ethical risks, as they are not mission driven but profit driven and that increases the danger.” I agree wholeheartedly.
Ultimately it is the educational institutions that use education agents that are best placed to ensure that their agents are behaving professionally. Institutions that are serious about building an effective agent channel which generates enrollments, while also protecting students and the institution’s brand, should focus on robust agent management systems that support those outcomes. AgentBee helps clients do that.
2. Education Agents are here to stay
The article concludes that stopping the use of education agents and pathway providers is not likely to happen. That is right. They play an important role in the international education market and are here to stay.
Consider the chart below, which shows the use of education agents in several of the key markets around the world.
Translate that into raw numbers and you get some big figures. Take Australia for example. There are about 500,000 international students studying in Australia. The table above tells us that about 53% percent of them were recruited through agents – 265,000 students.
Further, international education contributed about A$20 billion to the Australian economy in 2015. Again, based on the chart above, about half of that sum can be traced back to the work of education agents in sourcing the students who are generating that economic benefit.
The Australian Minister for Education has said that the Australian Government is focused on improving the “competitiveness of the sector by streamlining the administrative burden for education institutions while maintaining strong protections for students.” It does not seem likely that the Australian Government is about to close down channels that are currently responsible for generating half the international student volume in this massive industry.
My guess is that governments in the other main destination markets are taking a similar approach as they seek to ensure their country and its education providers are competitive in the international education market.
3. Only struggling institutions use agents
The article asserts that it is only the struggling institutions that resort to using agents and pathway providers. Perhaps that is true in the US market. It is certainly not true in other markets. For example, most of the top Australian universities – some of which could on any measure be described as world-class – use agents.
In his email to me, Hans agreed that there are important differences between the US and Australian markets in the approach to using agents, and clarified that his point related to the US market. He said:
My point was focused on the US, where I see that the rapid development in the use of agents and other private providers used by universities who outsource, there is a higher risk as there is still little experience and the stakes for struggling universities are higher.
I agree.
4. Internationalisation must be ethical
This is the main conclusion drawn in the article and it is 100% right.
Internationalisation in the international education market is racing ahead at break neck speed as the pool of potential students continues to grow with the expanding middle classes in key source countries; as destination country governments implement policies to attract international students; and as institutions seek to increase their international student enrollments. With that pace of change comes many risks, including the significant risks in working with agents.
Professor de Wit’s concern that many institutions are focused solely on internationalisation at any cost, and are not taking account of the risks involved is well founded.
As institutions have focused on using agents to increase international student enrollments there is a question about whether agent management and quality control systems have been developed and implemented to support best practice and to address the very real risks involved.
For educational institutions that use agents the benefits of developing and investing in robust agent management policies and systems are clear. Policies and systems that support engagement with agents should produce a higher number of enrollments from the agent channel, and proactive management of risk – including the risk of agent fraud – provides enhanced protection for both prospective international students, and the institution’s own brand and reputation.
A final note for in-house recruiters…
If you considering your approach to education agent management, please check out AgentBee It’s a complete agent management system that:
- Increases enrollments through your agent channel – by making it easy for you to engage with agents regularly and give them easy access to the information and resources they need to recruit for you.
- Saves time for in-house recruitment teams – by making it easy to do the daily tasks involved with managing your agent network – eg updates, training, and performance monitoring.
- Manages risk – by giving you tools to protect your brand and reputation by monitoring agent engagement and performance.