This past week I had the privilege of speaking at two important events on international higher education: the SAMS Global conference Beyond Compliance: Driving Agent Quality and Impact through Digital Transformation and the Westminster Higher Education Forum’s seminar on the Next Steps for International Students in the UK.
Both events underscored what many of us already know: international student recruitment has never been more important for UK higher education, but it has also never been more fragile.
A sector leaning on international fees
UK universities are heavily dependent on international student fee income to stay afloat. These fees cross-subsidise teaching, research, and the day-to-day running of our institutions.
And yet, as the Office for Students recently reported, the proportion of providers forecasting a deficit has risen from 30% to nearly 48%. Almost half of English universities are now expecting to be in the red, even with international student recruitment propping up the books.
On paper, international fees look like a major source of surplus. But strip out the true costs of recruitment and delivery, and the picture changes. A significant number of universities are earning less than £9,000 net per international student – less than the regulated home undergraduate fee.
For some, this is better than having empty seats. But for many, it is the direct result of ballooning recruitment costs, with some institutions spending 30% of fee income on commissions and marketing. That means tens of millions of pounds flowing out each year just to keep the pipeline open.
Complexity without rationalisation
The structural challenge is how we recruit. Faced with competitive pressure, universities rarely make trade-offs. Instead, they add more and more activity: more agents, more digital marketing, more pathway partnerships, more overseas offices.
On paper, international fees look like a major source of surplus. But strip out the true costs of recruitment and delivery, and the picture changes
Each channel has value, but the way they are layered together creates increasingly complex and costly recruitment systems. Instead of becoming more efficient, we are becoming additive, reactive, and expensive. Rationalisation, not further expansion, should be our focus.
The agent conundrum
Faced with pressure to deliver volume, universities have become unusually dependent on agents. While we lack precise data, it is likely that at least 70% of international intakes now come through agents.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Agents play a critical role in connecting students and institutions. But the scale of incentives – commissions, bonuses, success fees – risks distorting behaviours. We are competing on payments, not on quality, service, or student fit.
This is where the Agent Quality Framework (AQF) should matter. It has the potential to professionalise relationships, raise standards, and create accountability. But unless it is embedded into real strategy, it risks becoming little more than a compliance exercise, a way to keep regulators at bay rather than to transform practice.
The questions we must face
The UK remains an attractive destination. But beneath the surface, the economics and behaviours of international recruitment are far less comfortable than they appear. This leaves us with some urgent questions:
- Do we actually know what we are trying to achieve with international recruitment – is it a long-term strategy or just a short-term fix?
- Are we setting fees strategically, or simply undercutting competitors in order to achieve volume targets?
- Can we rationalise our recruitment activity, rather than endlessly adding cost?
- Are we embedding transparency and accountability into our agent relationships, or are we hiding behind the facade of the AQF?
And perhaps most personally: are you proud of the way your institution recruits international students? Would you be happy if the agent representing your university were the one advising your own child on their study abroad journey?
If the answer is no, then we risk not only undermining our reputation but also jeopardising the very revenue on which the sector has become so dependent.
A fragile balance
The past week’s discussions highlighted both the pressures and the possibilities. There is appetite across the sector to go beyond compliance, to professionalise agent relationships, and to find more sustainable approaches. But the fragility of our current model cannot be ignored.
The challenge is clear: if we want international recruitment to remain a strength of UK higher education, we must make it strategic, efficient, transparent, and above all, ethical. Anything less will cost us dearly – both financially and reputationally – in the years to come.
