A council charged with making recommendations on the use of paid-for education agents by US institutions held its first public hearing this week, but found few signs of consensus. NACAC’s Jim Miller said that the day was constructive but the council's ultimate task was "finding what's best—and asking what's realistic". A council charged with making recommendations on the use of paid-for education agents by US institutions held its first public hearing this week, with initial feedback showing little sign of consensus on the contentious issue.
Four government departments were among those to give evidence, with each offering a differing standpoint. David Bergeron, deputy assistant secretary of education for policy, planning and innovation at the Department of Education gave signs that the department was sceptical of commission-based agents, implying they posed a quantity over quality threat. This is a big step towards the Department of State's traditionally anti agent position.
Greg Thompson, a senior international trade specialist at the
Department of Commerce, said his department was pro agents and had even helped them connect with interested US colleges, as reported by the
Global Chronicle of Higher Education, while the Department of Homeland Security was said to be undecided on the issue.
Agent advocates from outside the USA joined the debate including Tamsin Thomas, education marketing manager at the British Council and Sarah Wolf, education manager for North America at the Australian embassy, who explained how extensive regulation had promoted ethical use of agents in her country.
Josep Rota of Ohio University spoke on behalf of the American International Recruitment Council (
AIRC), the most prominent body representing US-linked agents, saying that agents were a “critical tool” for US institutions.
"Pretending that agents are not involved [in recruitment] is a denial of reality," he was reported as saying by
Inside Higher Ed. “The best approach is to regulate them.”
Voices against included Elizabeth Thornhill, branch chief of
EducationUSA, the federal initiative promoting American higher education, who said the body chose not to work with agents on principle as they did "not present students with the full breadth of options".
Others suggested bringing the agent function in-house at institutions by ramping up in-country college advisory services, while Philip Ballinger, chair of the NACAC council (and assistant VP for enrolment at the University of Washington), said that the US lacked the required infrastructure to regulate agents.
Philip Ballinger, chair of the NACAC council, said that the US lacked the required infrastructure to regulate agents
NACAC’s Jim Miller, a commission member and past president of the association, called the hearing constructive, but said that the council's ultimate task was "finding what's best—and asking what's realistic".
AIRC’s Executive Director, John Deupree, told
the PIE News that it was too early to make judgements on what could happen. “AIRC was pleased to have the opportunity to present... Our statement seemed well received but it is up to the commission to decide on the course it wants to take,” he said.
The council was set up after NACAC – which represents the bulk of American colleges and universities – divided members with a proposal to ban agent use in international student recruitment last summer (currently it is only illegal to take commission when placing US students).
The future of the US-focused agent industry worldwide, as well as of NACAC as an organisation itself, will be determined in late 2013 when the council makes its final recommendations.
A council charged with making recommendations on the use of paid-for education agents by US institutions held its first public hearing this week, with initial feedback showing little sign of consensus on the contentious issue.
Four government departments were among those to give evidence, with each offering a differing standpoint. David Bergeron, deputy assistant secretary of education for policy, planning and innovation at the Department of Education gave signs that the department was sceptical of commission-based agents, implying they posed a quantity over quality threat. This is a big step towards the Department of State’s traditionally anti agent position.
Greg Thompson, a senior international trade specialist at the Department of Commerce, said his department was pro agents and had even helped them connect with interested US colleges, as reported by the Global Chronicle of Higher Education, while the Department of Homeland Security was said to be undecided on the issue.
Agent advocates from outside the USA joined the debate including Tamsin Thomas, education marketing manager at the British Council and Sarah Wolf, education manager for North America at the Australian embassy, who explained how extensive regulation had promoted ethical use of agents in her country.
Josep Rota of Ohio University spoke on behalf of the American International Recruitment Council (AIRC), the most prominent body representing US-linked agents, saying that agents were a “critical tool” for US institutions.
“Pretending that agents are not involved [in recruitment] is a denial of reality,” he was reported as saying by Inside Higher Ed. “The best approach is to regulate them.”
Voices against included Elizabeth Thornhill, branch chief of EducationUSA, the federal initiative promoting American higher education, who said the body chose not to work with agents on principle as they did “not present students with the full breadth of options”.
Others suggested bringing the agent function in-house at institutions by ramping up in-country college advisory services, while Philip Ballinger, chair of the NACAC council (and assistant VP for enrolment at the University of Washington), said that the US lacked the required infrastructure to regulate agents.
Philip Ballinger, chair of the NACAC council, said that the US lacked the required infrastructure to regulate agents
NACAC’s Jim Miller, a commission member and past president of the association, called the hearing constructive, but said that the council’s ultimate task was “finding what’s best—and asking what’s realistic”.
AIRC’s Executive Director, John Deupree, told the PIE News that it was too early to make judgements on what could happen. “AIRC was pleased to have the opportunity to present… Our statement seemed well received but it is up to the commission to decide on the course it wants to take,” he said.
The council was set up after NACAC – which represents the bulk of American colleges and universities – divided members with a proposal to ban agent use in international student recruitment last summer (currently it is only illegal to take commission when placing US students).
The future of the US-focused agent industry worldwide, as well as of NACAC as an organisation itself, will be determined in late 2013 when the council makes its final recommendations.
