New Law Prohibiting Per-Head College Recruiting Heading to Court
by Mark H. Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA
Over the last six months we have been sharing information about new federal legislation that made it a criminal act to compensate college recruiters and agents based on how many students they enroll (As Career College Enrollments Soar, Government Eyes Recruitment Crackdown). While the majority of my comments (Role of Commissioned Agents in International Admission Debated at NACAC, and Commissioned Agents and Independent Educational Consultants: Recruiting International Students) centered around international agents, the new rules were designed to attack the persistent problems in career colleges / technical schools. The legislation took aim at schools whose graduation rates were often below 20%, with the Obama administration charging that many such schools used unacceptable practices to recruit, secure loans, and profit from students who had little chance of success.
I have written at length about my disdain for compensating agents or recruiters based on a per-head bounty (in many blogs). There is no need to once again tread on old ground, but suffice to say when people are paid to bring a student to a particular institution (but not others), the agents will act in their own financial interest, not in the best interest of the student.
With the new federal laws scheduled to go into effect in about five months, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (formerly the Career College Association), representing trade and technical schools, filed a lawsuit to stop implementation of the new guidelines. The prohibition against per-head payments to recruiters, as well as companion measures to end deceptive marketing, will be defended by the Department of Education as protecting students and taxpayers after numerous reports of abuses.
Related posts:
- Commissioned Agents and Independent Educational Consultants: Recruiting International Students
- IECA Supports NACAC’s Proposal on International Recruitment
- As Career College Enrollments Soar, Government Eyes Recruitment Crackdown
- Heading to NACAC: 5 Things That Independent Educational Consultants Need to Share with College Admission Representatives
- We Must Do a Better Job Ensuring Colleges Understand WHAT Educational Consultants DO and How Many Kids We Work With
Pingback: Tweets that mention New Law Prohibiting Per-Head College Recruiting Heading to Court -- Topsy.com
Mr. Sklarow:
Are you aware that the average Chinse student looking for a U.S. university applies to no less than 10 different universities? The agency wants to place the student at the highest caliber university the student is eligible for.
Schools who join cooperative agreements with agencies, those agencies also are foundation schools that provide the initial English language training these students need to come in the first place.
The AIRC now accredits agents, using U.S. criteria and a lengthy vetting process.
The UK, Canada and Australia receive 60% of their students from agents. America is thinking like a dinosaur (not you, sir) on this issue.
It’s 2011 and U.S. schools need the income international students supply (at 4x the tuition of a native student) and they do not need financial aide.
Parents use agents as an insurance policy that the applications will be filled out correctly, and processed on time.
Kathryn,
I appreciate hearing from you.
I understand your view that Chinese students (all international students, really) are seeking admission to a small group of highly competitive and world-famous universities. What distresses me, and provides greater assurance that IECA is on the right track, is your second sentence: “The agency wants to place the student at the highest caliber university.” There is so much wrong with that sentence, where do I begin?
First, we believe strongly that the process we are involved in is selecting a school where a student belongs, that is academically and socially compatible with his or her needs and abilities and where a student will thrive. Getting in is important, but succeeding is critical. Always seeking the toughest place or the highest “rated” makes little sense. What matters is the appropriateness of the fit. Second, you indicate that such admission is what “the agency wants.” How backward! What should matter is what the student and her family want—not the company providing support. The role of the independent educational consultant is to guide a student to explore possibilities and ultimately come to some conclusion about what colleges are good matches. If, as you suggest, agents are paid by universities to convince students to matriculate, then my years-long expression of concern is warranted.
I have written that I salute efforts—any efforts—to clean up the unethical behaviors of international agents. However I fear the AIRC may have gone about the process backwards. Rather than first adopt tough, unbending standards, and then only invite companies to join that meet them, they chose an easier path. They first recruited agents to join. The screening was largely based around economic viability and a demonstration of business qualifications. Now, as they seek to set standards, they feel they need unanimous buy-in by those who have already been accepted as members. The result is an organization with promise, but no clear, tough standards.
My objections with agents are long-standing. I believe many—if not most—mislead families into believing they work for the students. They do not. They are paid for and therefore work for institutions. They only get a paycheck if they place students at certain schools with whom they are contracted. That alone corrupts the system; that they are not required to disclose this basic fact to families elevates the potential for abuse. Worse still, many also take money from families and students. They pretend to be counselors but they are marketers and recruiters. There is good reason that such behavior is not only unethical if practiced domestically—it is illegal.
You conclude that the United States is acting like a dinosaur. If ethics, fairness, and putting students first are qualities that are nearly extinct, then more power to those who stand up for children, and honor, and fairness.
This is an interesting issue. I’m an independent educational consultant working out of Vancouver, Canada, a city which benefits greatly from international students. To a certain extent, I see why charging the schools make sense. They are after all getting these inflated tuition fees; they can afford to pay the agent much more than the families who sometimes sacrifice everything to give their children this opportunity. As well, there is often a significant cultural hurtle for families, especially from historically closed countries such as China, and international agents do help bridge this gap and thus provide a service to the schools. However, over the years I have seen a lot of poor counselling done by agents who are motivated by kickbacks and not be the best interest of their clients. In fact, when I first became an independent educational consultant, I had a lot of local doors slammed in my face because people thought I was going to ask for a commission. I have since learned to say “I’m not an international student agent” really fast!
I’m wondering if there isn’t a way of separating these two functions. Would it be ethical for an agent to provide consultation to schools on how to market themselves to a specific profile of student? Not do the recruiting for them, but as a separate service, do what they do best, bridge the gap. If this was made transparent and stated somewhere obvious such as on the agent’s website, could they then proceed to run an ethical practice, charging families and families only for an unbiased referral to the best fit for the student? Or would this be a conflict of interest?
Kima,
You raise a good question. First, let’s repeat what the current ethics policy is and the basis. IECA members are prohibited from accepting any compensation from a school, university or program in exchange for the placement or referral of a student. Our Ethics Committee makes clear that this extends not only to fees typically paid to agents (usually a set fee or a percentage of the first year’s tuition once a student enrolls), but also any gift valued at $75 or more that isn’t directly tied to educating the independent educational consultant. These rules exist to remove any doubt about what motivates and guides the independent educational consultant (IEC). The IEC must be driven by the best interest of the student and explore referrals to best possible placements (not merely those with placement agreements).
However, you raise an interesting question. Can an IEC work as a paid adviser to a school? Generally speaking, yes, as long as the fees paid were directly related to hours/days spent in consultation and reflect work actually performed. Such an arrangement would, as you suggest, require full disclosure by the IEC reflecting that he/she is a paid consultant by the institution and that the relationship will not be used to influence decisions. In fact, I suggest greater caution. Let’s say an IEC is asked to visit school A and provide advice on the program and marketing. The school pays the IEC a two-day fee of $600. The IEC should indicate, in writing, on their contract, that families should be aware that the IEC has provided paid advice to school A and that this relationship will not in any way impact the advisory services. I strongly suggest in this circumstance, should school A be under serious consideration for a student, that the IEC consider withdrawing from the case and refer to another IEC or at the very least, refrain from any indication to the school that they are involved, else the appearance of bought influence corrupt the process.
Bottom line for me, Kima, is what I often refer to as the New York Times rule. The more intertwined schools and IECs become, the worse it looks to the public. An IEC who takes money from a school MAY be able to make completely ethical, unrelated decisions free from influence…but would it APPEAR that way if played out on the front page of the New York Times? Would YOU believe there was no influence if you read about a doctor receiving payments from a lab or a math teacher receiving payments from a tutor?