Student Recruitment Agents in International Higher Education looks comprehensively at how agents fit into the sector and their practices. 

In the book, editors Vincenzo Raimo, Pii-Tuulia Nikula and Eddie West outline the benefits and detriments that can come with working with education agents, along with chapter contributions from various stakeholders. 

For students, it says, the benefits can be plentiful, mostly around easing the “complexities of finding a suitable institution and study destination” abroad. 

“[This is] as well as finding out how the application, admission and visa processes operate,” the trio wrote.

The relationship between institutions and agents, the book indicates, can be much more murky without proper examination. 

“If higher education institutions work with agents, they need to provide sufficient resources to manage this activity and accept accountability for the actions of their agents,” Nikula told The PIE News. 

“As editors of this book, we don’t believe that the use of agents should be considered as a given – alternatives do exist, and higher education institutions can choose other channels to recruit students,” she explained. 

One of the more crucial angles, especially in the current climate of issues arising among agent conduct in both Australia and Canada, is how the use of agents is regulated. 

“Would an agent refer a student to a university that doesn’t pay commission when that university is a better options for the student? Possibly, but not necessarily,” consultant Liz Reisberg and founder of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, Philip G. Altbach, wrote in one chapter. 

“Would an agent be motivated to learn about HEIs other than the ones that have agreed to pay a commission? Again, possibly, but not necessarily,” they continued, citing a BUILA survey from 2021 where almost a quarter of respondents said they believed agents were biased towards specific institutions. 

They also touch upon the difficulty of monitoring agencies in the long run. While most agencies are likely playing by the rules, the task for organisations trying to “ensure standards of ethical practice” is how to guarantee what they are doing on a “daily basis”. 

“Success-based commission payments are not the only costs in working with agents”

“Few governments are likely to make regulation of this industry a high priority, especially with politically powerful lobbies and private interests running interference,” Reisberg and Altbach concluded. 

While institutions are encouraged by voices in the book to think about whether they work with agents, academic Shanton Chang wrote in a chapter that students also need to recognise that agents are “highly influential”. It is all the more important to check they are working with someone “suitable”, “based on their unique needs and goals”, Chang continued.

“Agents cannot guarantee a job, or part-time jobs, a place at an institution, a student’s success in university courses, or permanent residency in host countries,” Chang warned. 

However, he also stressed that students will “benefit from closer positive collaborations between institutions and agents”. 

Editors Nikula, Raimo and West concluded that students’ interests can be further protected through institutions’ appointment and management of agents, by “carefully reviewing their own practices”.

While acknowledging the “costs and complexities” for HEIs trying to make sure they work with only “good agents”, they also said the onus is on the institutions.

“HEIs have a choice of using or not using agents… It is also crucial that HEIs and other stakeholders understand that success-based commission payments are not the only costs in working with agents. 

“Set-up and ongoing management, marketing support, risk mitigation measures, and training and development must also be taken into account,” they concluded. 

“This book is just the beginning of a conversation”

The rise of different companies not originally in that sphere wading into the agent model itself – possibly “agents in a different guise” – was also touched upon.

Pathway providers and institution rankers are venturing into wider “education services” to universities, which may include acting as “direct recruiters”, the trio wrote. 

“Should prospective students not be told that guidance from rankers or the prominence of institutional profiles on rankers’ websites might be influenced by whether an HEI is willing to pay for that service or not?” 

Citing the rise of aggregators, the trio also argued transparency, while crucial, was getting “more difficult to achieve”. But if done, would also “de-risk the larger agent ecosystem for all parties”, the acknowledged.

“A case can be made that the emergence of multinational aggregators, while providing value to some agents, students and higher education institutions, has simultaneously undermined previous gains that have been made in terms of transparency,” Nikula told The PIE.

“This book is just the beginning of a conversation and as editors we hope that future publications will shed light on themes that we weren’t able to cover,” she added.