I find this article from the New York Times slightly disturbing.
If you haven’t read it, please do — it is long, enlightening, and profiles one family in particular from Beijing who was able to send their daughter to university in Ohio. But if you don’t have time to read it, here are the basics:
- Student overseas wants to go to American, Australian, Canadian, or UK university.
- American, Australian, Canadian, and UK universities want students from overseas because
• they pay way more tuition, and
• it diversifies their school culture, and
• they pay way more tuition, and… wait, I already said that. - So, Student pays X amount of USD to Agent to find him an appropriate university in the western world, and
- American, Australian, Canadian, and UK universities pay Y amount of USD to same Agent to find them Z number of international students because
• they pay way more tuition, and
• it diversifies their school culture, and
• did I mention that they pay way more tuition? - Agent finds appropriate fit, Student applies to University recommended by Agent, and is admitted.
- Student happy (found tertiary educational direction), University happy ($$$ + cultural diversity = better learning?).
- Agent happiest, because X + Y = BINGO.
The article states,
. . . [M]any agents collect hefty fees from both sides — the students they advise, and the universities they contract with — leaving some to question whose interest is being served . . .
To be fair, the next sentence implies that some people are working towards changing this perception:
Even some advocates of recruiting agents see a need for an ethics code.
And further,
“We should be doing this, but we should be doing it right,” said Mitch Leventhal, vice provost of international affairs at the University of Cincinnati, which has contracts with agents. “And I don’t think it’s right for students to have to pay a lot if the agent is also getting paid by the university. I don’t think it’s ethical.”
Umm, but you’re still doing it, aren’t you? Did the University of Cincinnati cut their contracts with the agents because Mr. Leventhal said it was unethical to pay them? (Note that the sentence above does not say if the University of Cincinnati pays the agents they have contracts with.)
At least one university representative thinks it is unethical and does not pay agents they have contracts with:
Throughout Asia and to a lesser extent other parts of the world, thousands of agents offer help to students seeking admission to an English-speaking university, charging them fees that may be a few hundred dollars, or far more. “Some agents charge as much as $30,000,” said John Robert Cryan of the University of Toledo, which works with agents, but pays no commissions. “There’s a lot of gouging going on.”
[emphasis mine]
Apparently, Mr. Leventhal (of the U of C, above) is an advocate of ethics in this field, but get this:
Mr. Leventhal is also advocating a code of ethics, modeled on Australian practice, under which American universities would pay agents a 10 percent commission, if the agents agreed to charge students only a nominal fee.
This is ethical? Am I missing something? Maybe an Aussie can explain it to me, as apparently this is Australian practice. To my mind, none of this is ethical. For students AND universities to pay for placement at “the right” university? Where does that leave the international (or local, for that matter) student who wants and rightly deserves a place in a university? Well, apparently, unless he has between $500 and $5000 US to spend — that leaves him nowhere.
On the last page of the article, Philip G. Altbach, director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, is quoted as saying:
“In a globalized world, where some people need a lot of guidance to get here, there may be a legitimate place for responsible middlemen,” he said, then added, “although I really hate it.”
And I agree — perhaps there is a need for a middleman. But, but, but… here are my buts:
- Universities should NOT be paying them — what if instead they were simply “regular” university employees, out and about recruiting for their university as normal?
- Students should not have to pay them very much (like, less than $50), or even better nothing at all
Basically, I think that universities perhaps need to beef up their own recruitment practices, and aim to recruit international students the old-fashioned way — by making their university look like the best place to go, rather than by paying a middleman thousands of dollars.
Does anyone else think this is unethical? Or am I being too old-fashioned and curmudgeonly?
Whatever happened to open and honest application procedures? Whatever happened to applications requiring that the person with the best fit (based on grades, SAT scores, and whatever else the university deems necessary) gets in on his/ her own merit, rather than simply because he/she is from China and has thousands of dollars to spend?
Should people be making money from international students’ desire to go to university in the Western world?
Photo credit: Here. There. And Nowhere. by drp
I agree that it is unethical and agree that one way to remedy this is for the recruiter to be paid as a salaried employee. Then, there is no incentive for the employee to recruit based upon what results in the recruiter’s best financial windfall.
And no, though curmudgeonly is a great word, I don’t see it that way. But then again, maybe I’m simply curmudgeonly myself.
You old curmudgeon, you…
I don’t see this as differing too much from:
1. American students being given places at universities because somebody made a timely ‘donation’ to the school coffers.
2. International students paying massive tuitions to private for-profit ‘international schools’ whose sole reason for existence is to qualify students for American/UK/Australian/Canadian universities.
3. How I got my job at my current school: I attended a job fair, was allocated an Associate and paid him a fee (as did the school) for helping me with any and all arrangements.
These agents are selling information and getting paid to make connections. The commodity that they are selling is valuable to both parties, so they can sell it to both. A salaried position won’t work since the knowledge that these agents possess is too localized: it would not be cost-effective for each university to hire 5 or 6 agents each and pay them a salary that would attract them to leave their ‘consulting’ business.
Before you vilify me, I agree that there is a degree of unethical-ness here. But what are the viable alternatives?
The best way stop this practice is to make all of the information public, transparent, and accessible. Universities would have to band together in an effort to stop these agents by creating some sort of clearing-house system that allows prospective students to quickly and easily determine the schools that are possible matches. This makes the agents obsolete…
Peter,
I’m not sure what you mean about the theoretical salaried position, unless you mean that the recruiter is salaried by the university doing the recruiting. I agree that would be a practical solution.
Mr H,
1. I didn’t know this happened. This happens?? Man, I am so lucky to have been educated in Canada.
2. Are you speaking of international schools at the secondary or tertiary level? If you mean at the tertiary level (i.e., pre-college / university but post- high school), then I do see this as different b/c at least the students there are paying for some kind of education to further themselves, and not paying for a place to learn, where one should presumably be open to all.
3. I think it is completely unreasonable to compare a job hunt to a desire to be educated. A job fair is a place where you make your way in your career, based on choices. Education should be (and I realise it often is not) a “given,” provided you have achieved the minimum academic requirements for the institution, and should not be based on finances. (Yes, I realize I am speaking idealistically here, and far from many people’s reality.) You paid for a person (actually, a team) to help you achieve a job. Also – It is entirely possible to get a job at an international school without attending a job fair — I did it, and so do many others. The NYT article implies that these international students would not be able to get into these universities without paying for an agent. That, to my mind, is just plain wrong on so many levels.
[Cultural note: Keep in mind also that I am a Canadian, and I struggle somewhat with the idea of the “private” university, because we simply don’t have those where I am from. Our universities are not 100% functional on public funds (not like in parts of Europe, for example), but they are heavily subsidized and in my opinion, should be. We do not have any universities which are completely privately funded. Small vocational colleges, yes, but none that offer any kind of standard 4-year undergraduate degree.]
MsMichetti,
1. Yes it does happen, as do ‘legacy’ admissions (my grandfather and father went to University X, so it looks good for me too!).
2. I’m talking about secondary level. Now, mind you, I don’t have any hard evidence – merely anecdotes from teachers who have worked at sole purpose seemed to be graduating individuals so that they can qualify for universities.
3. I don’t think it is so unreasonable a comparison. These students are perfectly capable of searching out universities, filling out the applications, and hoping for the best. The agent facilitates this process and saves time, money and energy by directing the student to the appropriate institution. I don’t think universities will put their accreditation and reputation at risk by admitting students who do not meet the stated academic qualifications. One would hope that their grasp of the big picture is firmer than that.
I think there is a huge inequity in college admissions, whether we are talking about international students or domestic students, in America. This inequity manifests itself in many ways: students with money can afford test prep such as Kaplan; students with money can afford to hire an agent (as above); affluent students are more likely to take advantage of early action and early decision applications; affluent students are more likely benefit from legacies and donations. (Sorry to put these claims out unsubstantiated. No time to do the research. But I will…)
Don’t hate the player; hate the game.
Adrienne, I assumed a salaried position was what you were referring to when you said, “what if instead they were simply “regular” university employees”. So yes, I’m talking about a university paying a base salary to a recruiter that doesn’t involve bonuses depending on who the recruiter manages to recruit.
Mr. H claims that this is not practical because the “information” that the recruiters “possess is too localized”. I’m not saying he’s wrong, but I don’t understand the argument. Perhaps I’m simply too ignorant of the economics to get it. Regardless, a recruiter should not be influenced by the possibility of a cash bonus if they can successfully recruit more (or specific) students – for obvious reasons.
Mr H says,
“The agent facilitates this process and saves time, money and energy by directing the student to the appropriate institution.”
I’m a recruiter who knows that a student would be best suited for university X. However, if I can get the student to come to university Y, I know I will get paid more. Why should I direct the student to X (i.e. the “appropriate institution”)?
@Peter
Even non-partisan college admissions counselors have limited knowledge of universities. It has been my experience that college counselors (esp. for international students) “go with what they know” and have their own favorite universities that they will recommend. When I refer to localized knowledge, I’m referring to the agents understanding the individual circumstance of the students (which the universities would not possess) and understanding the requirements/benefits/culture of the universities (which the students would not possess).
As for comment #6, point taken. However, isn’t it the more likely scenario that I, as the recruiter, set the price and not the university? And if a university is not willing to pay my price then I’m not even going to consider learning about what would make a good match with that university? So, university X won’t even be on my radar… I don’t think it is a functional relationship (in the mathematical sense) between universities and students. For every university, more than one student will fit, and for every student, more than one university will be appropriate. If I steer a student to university Y, s/he will receive just as valuable an education. One hopes that the student is doing due diligence on their part and double-checking the recommendation of the agent. I think an issue of unethical-ness rears its head if the agent misrepresents either the student or the university.
Mr H
Why can’t university recruiters employ people who have knowledge in their field, then? Like, maybe recruiters who speak the languages of the region they are focused on, and who maybe [gasp!] have even lived there? And, hopefully, they also believe in the strengths and passions of the universities they represent while recruiting? Doesn’t this sound more logical? Then the university has people working for them with the localized knowledge you speak of. The world is getting smaller (and flatter to boot), so maybe universities need to get themselves into the 21st century of networking.
The article implied that universities set the rate, and not the recruiters:
““The market range is anywhere from 10 to 25 percent of tuition,” said Visakan Ganeson, director of international programs at Skagit Valley College in Mount Vernon, Wash., which gets about half of its 200 international students through commissioned agents. “How much you pay depends on your position in the market.”
Thus, it is possible that a recruiter could mis-match students to universities.
I also don’t believe that “For every university, more than one student will fit, and for every student, more than one university will be appropriate” or that if a recruiter “steer a student to university Y, s/he will receive just as valuable an education.” Polly’s University of Basketweaving might charge the same fee as Harvard.
I have to hate the player who is making $ off the game, and I think universities have a responsibility to hold themselves to high ethical standards and thus not play the game at all.
“As for comment #6, point taken. However, isn’t it the more likely scenario that I, as the recruiter, set the price and not the university?”
OK, take the word “more” out of my scenario. That is, should I be getting paid based on whether or not I am successful in recruiting someone?
Let’s say the average tuition for an international student is $30,000. And let’s say the university pays 20% to the agent. That’s $6000. And let’s say that 100 students the university arrive via agents. That’s $600,000 per year paid by the university in commission.
Now, if a university were to hire people knowledgeable in their field, how much would they pay them yearly? $50,000/year, inclusive of benefits, taxes, etc? (As you may have guessed, I’m making this number up. I have no way of knowing what a university would pay somebody to deliver golden eggs.) Do you think 12 of these employees could do the same job as the countless number of agents? I’m sure those 12 employees could focus on China or India and recruit the same 100 international students, but what kind of diversity is that? By the way, Harvard has students from over 100 different countries.
And yes, Polly’s will not offer the same level of education as Harvard, but that is not what I was arguing. Not all universities will give the same level of education, but there will be more than one that can give me what I want/need.
Also, as evidence for my earlier statement regarding early decision admissions:
“What is most troubling about this form of preference is that it rewards applicants who are fortunate enough to know that applying early can benefit them substantially and who attend secondary schools, or are from families, with sufficient sophistication to know how to meet the early application deadlines. This group includes students at top-tier secondary schools, those with close connections to the college or university to which they are applying, and recruited athletes. Also, the very nature of early decision programs—which require students offered admission to matriculate at the school in question—makes it impossible for students who have financial need to compare financial aid offers from various schools in which they are interested. Minority students are of course disproportionately represented in the “need-sensitive” category.”
@Mr. H
Did you read the original article? These universities aren’t using agents to recruit from 100+ different countries. Most universities are using the agent to recruit from one, maybe 2, countries overseas.
As for what you’re saying about early admissions — I didn’t argue with you about that, mostly due to my lack of knowledge (or understanding) about it, because this is the first I’ve heard of it (as I said previously, these scenarios do not happen where I’m from because they are simply not allowed). I think it’s wrong, period, and I’m disappointed that the American educational public has ever allowed that to happen. Y’know, there are times when I think America’s got education under control (when I see what some teachers / professors are doing in their courses) and then there are other times when I think it’s a right @#$@ mess (NCLB and this discussion).
Makes me think also of all the students I have taught who have been granted “unconditional acceptance” to American universities in January of their senior year based on predicted IB Diploma grades or even just their 1st semester report card grades. “Unconditional acceptance”? What the heck is that about?
So, *arms flailing* why isn’t anyone doing anything about this? Are the American public satisfied with all these inequities?
P.S. Mr H, wondering why you aren’t owning your comments? By this I mean that I have noticed you have not entered a URL in the comment form. I know who you are, but others don’t. 😉
To be honest, I didn’t read the entire article (until now). I was counting on your brilliant abilities of synopsis and paraphrasing and selective quoting… 🙂
However, after reading the entire article, I will still stand by my belief that it is more cost-effective for a small-time university to hire commissioned agents to attract diversity and big tuition payments. In this smaller, flatter world outsourcing is the way of the future.
I don’t think any student is ever granted admission to a U.S. university based on one semester’s worth of grades. That decision, to the best of my knowledge, will be based on the quality of work over grades 10, 11, 12 and maybe even 9. It will also include indicators such as SAT scores as well as application essays and letters of recommendation. Surely you are not advocating that the entire admissions process hinge on the outcome of a single set of exams? If anything, that is one of my biggest gripes with UK and some Australian universities.
Before we turn this into a ‘bash the American educational system’ free-for-all, let’s take some time to simmer down. YES, there are deplorable practices within the System and their are unfair advantages built in (call it institutional racism, elitism, classism, or any -ism of your choosing). There are also some pretty good things going on as well. Let’s not forget that…
Ti nâu (I hope that is an appropriate greeting)
This practice reminds me much of the ‘Headhunters’ or recruiters I would have to go through to find a job in medicine about 10 years ago. It was difficult to find jobs advertised for physicians; they generally aren’t posted in the local papers. In order to find out about the job, you’d have to be in touch with a recruiter.
I found a few positions this way and also was let go of a few because of the high recruiters fees. I think that the medical recruiter positions may be disappearing, because it is now easier to find medical jobs advertised online.
I am saddened to see that this type of practice is happening in academia. Hopefully schools will start addressing the interest in foreign students wanting to attend schools in the United States and figure out a way to cut out the middle man. I like your idea about using “regular” university employees, to go out and recruit for their university as normal.
I am posting as part of the 31 Day Challenge, in response to Day 24, posting to a foreign country, instead of in a foreign language.
@drdyer
Thanks for your contribution to this thread! I have mixed feelings about the idea of recruitment in certain professions. I’ve done it both ways in international education — I have used a recruiter, and I have not. I have had success both ways, leaving me to wonder if recruiters really do give one an advantage. I tend to think they were most beneficial for me when I was starting my career, whereas now that I’ve been in it for more than 10 years, I know the ropes and I certainly feel I know enough people that I can network on my own.
However, adding recruitment to an educational framework seems unethical to me when it is done in this manner — involving a middleman and so much money. I think education should be more equitable to everyone. Whereas in the professional arena, most people are on even playing field at least when it comes to salaries.