Around 70% of US education institutions expressed concern about fraudulent practice among education agencies, according to a recent report, with over half of the report’s survey respondents saying they find out about bad practice through the media.
News and business analysis for Professionals in International Education
Have some pie!
US: media fuels concerns over agency fraud
The pace of adoption of international student recruitment agencies by US institutions, produced by Bridge Education Group and StudentMarketing, found that 54% of respondents are aware of a negative experience when working with agencies through press coverage, with 39% saying they are aware from another US HE institution.
“Many will have no choice but to use agents”
“The more exposure the media brings to charlatan agents, their victims and the schools who engage the charlatans, the better,” said one anonymous respondent in the report.
In addition, close to a quarter (23%) said they had a bad first-hand experience themselves, however, another 23% said they weren’t aware of, or hadn’t had any bad experiences.
“It is rare to find an article that features a student that was recruited by an agency, admitted to his or her dream institutions, thrived at that institution and returned home to a fantastic career,” noted Mike Finnell, executive director of the American International Recruitment Council.
A lack of trust is the main reason US institutions said they do not engage with or work with education agencies, the report says.
It also found that among respondents who don’t use education agencies, the “reputational risk” commission-based agencies pose was the second most cited reason why. Commission being an undesired cost, was the next most commonly reported reason.
Despite some of the negative perceptions surrounding the use of agencies in the US, the adoption of this channel of international student recruitment is actually on the rise.
“Those working with agencies conclude that, rather than it [fraudulent behaviour] being a reason not to work with education agents, institutions must remain vigilant as it might also stem from the applicants themselves,” the report states.
The report also reveals that almost a third of US institutions now use educational agencies, which recruit an estimated 22% of all international students.
“As long as they need the revenue that international students bring, schools will be forced to engage in more and more aggressive recruiting,” said one respondent to the survey.
“Many will have no choice but to use agents.”
Still looking? Find by category:
Add your comment
3 Responses to US: media fuels concerns over agency fraud
Leave a Reply to Ross Jennings Cancel reply
Latest Tweets
Good agents require supports and training by institutions along with respect, recognition and legal backings. Sometimes, institutions fall for agents who can recruit great numbers, but ignore good agents who provide great quality.
There are significant risks involved with using agents but they can be reduced if institutions have good systems in place to actively manage and monitor their agents.
Many institutions sign up new agents, but then don’t engage with them, or send the odd email, because their recruitment teams are time poor and don’t have systems in place to support better agent management processes. Unfortunately the result is often that the institution receives very few applications from many of its agents, and has almost no ability to protect its brand and reputation by understanding how its agents are performing and where there are risks arising it may need to address.
I agree with the comments made by Geoff Field. Our college uses agents a great deal, but we closely engage with them, monitor their behavior and the quality of students they send, and never hesitate to address any problems that might occur. The median gpa of our international students is currently just over 3.5, and they continue to transfer to excellent universities all over the US (and Canada). We’re pleased with the results of using agents. The key is active and constant engagement, including the willingness to fire an agency if things do not work out.