The American International Recruitment Council (AIRC), established in 2008, enables US institutions to set standards for the agents they use. We catch up with Jennifer Wright, Associate Director for Certification and Qualifications, to talk about distrust of agents in the US and the upcoming NACAC’s ruling on agent use.
The PIE: Why did you set up AIRC originally?
JW: Basically agency-based recruitment is quite young in the US. There are 3,500 universities in the US and many, many of them do not know how to enter the field of using agents in a professional way. We saw it had been done very successfully in the UK and Australia for many, many years, and we understood it was being done in the US, but with a hestancy on the part of many institutions, particularly because of the commission involved.
So we had the idea that if we had a certification scheme which in a way vetted agencies, building a level of trust, then there would hopefully be more acceptance of what agencies do.
The PIE: Who are your members?
JW: Our members are recruitment agencies from around the world that have successfully been through our certification process – that’s one group. The other are our institutional members – generally universities and pathway programme providers who want to be a part of what we do. We also have an affiliate status for secondary schools. Institutional members actually write our standards and develop our policies. We have 182 institutional members right now and 50 certified agencies.
Institutional members actually write our standards and develop our policies
The PIE: The National Association for College Admission Counselling (NACAC) is soon to rule on whether its members (including most US universities) can use commission-based foreign agents. What do you think the distrust is all about?
JW: Believe it or not, in the earlier part of the twentieth century there was commission-based recruiting of American students in the US, but it got out of hand. There were issues – incentives, favours giving for placing students at certain colleges etc. So NACAC was formed and one of their guidelines was that you could not get commission for placing a student. So a logical leap was made that if that applied to domestic students it must apply to international students too.
The second issue is the fact that title four of the US Department of Education Act also prohibits paying commission for the placement of domestic students. That has to do with the schools receiving financial aid from the government. But there’s a provision in that act that allows commission to be paid on international students. However, many in the US have assumed that this is illegal too. Part of what we do is educating people about the fact that it is not in any way illegal.
The PIE: How many US institutions use agents then?
JW: We’re not sure exactly but we think it’s between 30% and 50%.
There are so many schools that are waiting for the NACAC ruling that want to enter into a strategy of using agents
The PIE: Are you confident that NACAC will rule in their favour?
JW: NACAC is supposed to release it’s initial report in June, then there should be a final decision by October. We have a level of confidence that the ruling’s going to be favourable towards what AIRC does. That’s based on discussions with them that we’ve had but we don’t know anything beyond that, it’s still very confidential.
The PIE: If for some reason it didn’t go in your favour, what would that mean for US schools?
JW: There are so many schools that are waiting for this ruling that want to enter into a strategy of using agents. Everyone would have to give up that idea and focus on other channels of recruiting: using admissions officers that do the travelling themselves and online marketing for example. No one but a university employee would be able to recruit overseas students.
The PIE: Are these channels not as effective as using agents?[More>>]
JW: Agents are just a different tool in your tool box as we like to say. If they are trained well, in many ways an agent can be a better representative to a student than an admissions officer from the US. Because the agent is from the country, they know the families, they know the students, they know the culture. So they know what appeals to a student.
An admissions officer usually does a lot of traveling and meets a lot of students. But the contact is often brief and involves giving out brochures and telling students a little bit about your school. There’s a cost element as well: yes agents are taking commission, but using agents can be less expensive in terms of man hours and the fatigue associated with travel.
The PIE: If NACAC goes the other way and endorses agents, will the US gain a major competitive advantage?
JW: I think you’d see many more US schools at workshops such as ICEF and joining AIRC. There would be much more focus on that new opportunity to recruit, and it would increase the profile of all US schools as well as our student numbers. And in the long run it will benefit the students because they will then have more exposure to many more US universities and colleges.
Agents are just a different tool in your tool box as we like to say
The PIE: Can you really be sure that every agent AIRC works with is legit?
JW: Well we hope that people will let us know if they know of anything untoward going on. There is an opportunity for the public to comment during the process of agency joining us and once it had become a member. There’s teeth to it, too, in that we would investigate any kind of complaint if it is about a violation of our standards.
We have a means to investigate, to have the agency respond and tell us their side of the story, and we will send in a reviewer to see what is going on. If the agency is indeed in violation then we would put it on probation or revoke their certification.
The PIE: Have you ever had to take action against an operator?
JW: No. But I think an agency would only go through the certification process if they knew they were following the rules. It would be difficult to say, ‘I am only going to follow the rules for six months while I am going through certification’. That doesn’t make any sense because you’re setting yourself up for failure.
Plus if it’s a violation affecting the student it’s also going to harm the agent’s reputation and hurt their business. So it’s in everybody’s best interests to follow the rules and be professional.
The PIE: US schools have complained to the PIE about the government’s conflicted approach to agents. The Department of State doesn’t endorse their use and yet the US Commercial Service does…
JW: It’s something we’re very much aware of and we’re working on a white paper right now, using our consultants and connections with the State Department to try to at least inform them that there’s positive and professional activity going on in the world of agent use. We also meet with embassy officials on the ground to tell them about what we do.
I think an agency would only go through the certification process if they knew they were following the rules
The PIE: Have you had any success getting them to listen?
JW: Yes. Working with the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and legislative offices associated with some of our members, we removed a clause from a recent immigration bill that would have stopped foreign science, technology, engineering and maths students being able to obtain special STEM visas if they came through agents.
We did this by contacting people we know that have lobbyists and they exerted influence on our behalf. This was to make sure that the representatives involved in the passage of the bill knew the other side of the story. About the billions of dollars foreign students bring to the US and the fact that agents can be used ethically.
