LEAP Virtual Colloquium:
developing a comprehensive
international recruitment
strategy
Ron cushing
university of cincinnati
Your Instructor
Ron Cushing is the Director of
International Services at the
University of Cincinnati (UC), an
urban research university with
over 3,400 international students.
UC is a founding member of the
American International
Recruitment Council.
Topic to be Covered
• Introduction to importance of recruiting
internationally
• Different models of international
recruitment
• The Agents as Partners Model
• Resources (and changes) universities
need for effective international
recruitment
Importance of Recruiting
Internationally
•
Currently over 3 million students study abroad
Worldwide
•
Exponential growth of 50% since 2000
•
7 million international students expected by
2025
Importance Continued
• Increase diversity on campus
– Out of State, Ethnic, Religious, etc.
• Increase university’s national and international
reputation
• Prepare students for global workforce
• International recruitment is a fundamental
step in US foreign relations
• And….
Importance Continued
• Undergraduate international students typically
pay higher tuition and receive less scholarships
than domestic students
• International students do not receive US public
funded financial aid (stafford loans, etc.)
• Most international students do not receive state
subsidy
• International students contribute $20 billion
dollars annually to the U.S. economy
Current Models of International
Recruitment
There are many models for international
recruiting, including:
• Tours (Linden Tours, CIS Tours, Indus
Foundation, etc.)
• EducationUSA offices
• High school visits/College Fairs
• Articulation/Exchange Agreements
• Government Sponsored Students
International Recruitment Models
Continued
• “Armchair Recruitment” (websites, search engines,
magazines, virtual fairs)
• Faculty relationships (visits home, international
presentations, etc.)
• Agent Recruitment, Or….
• No recruitment strategy at all - the “students have
always found us” model
Most US universities use a combination of some or all
these models.
First Step: Self-assessment – What
Can Your School “Sell” Overseas?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brand name
Ranking / Prestige
Unique / in-demand programs
Location
“Price” – low tuition, “discounting”, scholarships
Speed & flexibility in admissions
Employment prospects upon completion
Agents As Partners
Using agents for international recruiting is a wellestablished industry in many markets around the world.
While the industry has gained much traction in recent years
in the United States, it remains a controversial practice that
still produces many passionate opinions, both in favor and
against.
According ICEF, there are 24,000
Recruitment agencies in 189 countries
worldwide
Legend
Over 1000
501 - 1000
251 - 500
101 - 250
51 - 100
1 - 50
ICEF estimates that 7,000 are qualified
recruitment agencies
Legend
Over 500
251 - 500
101 - 250
51 - 100
1 - 50
Educators working with
recruitment agencies – 3,550
in 89 countries
Legend
Over 500
251 - 500
101 - 250
51 - 100
1 - 50
Limited Use of Agents in U.S.
• A quick scan of leading recruitment agents in India, China, Brazil
and elsewhere reveals remarkably short lists, dominated by
relatively obscure institutions.
• This stands in stark contrast with Australian and British where many
top universities engage agents.
• Until very recently, virtually no major US research universities or
competitive private liberal arts colleges were willing to engage
agents directly.
• A few institutions utilized agents heavily, often with little regard to
quality control or student quality, and virtually no understanding
of emerging best practices.
US educators working with
agents (ICEF customer base
2006-2011)
Higher Education
Secondary/Boarding
Language
Compensation Models
• Common US Agent Recruitment Models:
– University works with agents, and pays them a
“commission” (percentage of tuition or flat fee)
• University works with agents, and pays them
“marketing” fees (annual retainer)
• University works with agents who do not charge
university any fees (charges students)
• University unknowingly accepts applications from
agents
Common Theme With
Agent Models in U.S.
• Agent-University relationship is not transparent to
students
• University hides its agent affiliation from other
universities
• Agents incur many expenses (such as visiting
university campus, advertisements, etc.)
• Students are not motivated by university to use
agents
Americans Have Been Slow
Learners
• American admissions officers have generally rejected
the use of commission-based agents – despite their
proven effectiveness elsewhere
• Why? The reasons given vary, but most boil down to
these three:
– “It’s illegal. Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) prohibits paying
commissions to recruiters.”
– “It was Prohibited by National Association for College Admissions
Counseling (NACAC).”
– “It’s unethical. Agents do not work in the interest of the students.”
Not Illegal and Not Prohibited
The HEA Explicitly Permits Commission-based Recruitment of Foreign Students
The “small print” from Title IV:
(b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that
(22)(i) It will not provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive
payment based directly or indirectly upon success in securing enrollments
or financial aid to any person or entity engaged in any student recruiting
or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the awarding of title
IV, HEA program funds, except that this limitation does not apply to
the recruitment of foreign students residing in foreign countries who are
not eligible to receive title IV, HEA program funds.
NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP),
which prohibited commission payments, Did Not Apply to
Foreign Students and was recently revised to:
Not offer or accept any reward or remuneration from a secondary
school, college, university, agency, or organization for placement
or recruitment of students in the United States. Members who
choose to use incentive-based agents when recruiting students
outside the US will ensure accountability, transparency and
integrity.
Is Working with Agents
Legal ? Ethical ?
Using agents is legal ...
• US Federal law does not prohibit payment to international counsellors
• NACAC Commission revised its Statement of Principles of Good Practice indicating
it’s not a banned practice
• NAFSA supports the use of agents & provides much insight into the practice
Using agents is not unethical ...
•
•
British Council - „Education agents are a student lead demand ... used globally and are
resources that have become a global industry and phenomenon”
It is the educator‘s responsibility to be selective and choose the right agents
Change is afoot ..
• AIRC certifies agencies, and institutional membership continues to grow
• ICEF‘s North American clients continue to grow
Agents are Not
Necessarily Unethical
• Long-standing tradition in business of using trusted intermediaries
(agents and brokers) to facilitate business.
• Universities already utilize agents in many ways:
– Headhunters assist with presidential, provostal and decanal
searches
– Stock brokers manage university endowments
– Real estate agents assist with sale and purchase of property
holdings
– Insurance brokers assist university risk managers
These agents are not ethically suspect because their professional practice
standards are well established and familiar, and are supported by
trusted regulatory frameworks.
Problems with Banning Agents
• Students will use agents whether universities use
them or not
• The “ethical” stance of refusing to work with agents
actually empowers the unethical agents because
students do not know who to trust
• Desperate students and parents are vulnerable to
unscrupulous practices
What Is An Education Agent?
• Individual, company or institution that provides educational advice,
support & placement to students
• Person or organization abroad that markets / represents your
institution, generating applicants
• There are different types of agents:
1. Partners & representatives
2. Study abroad advisors
3. Travel agents with an educational division
4. Alumni, former colleagues, etc.
Why Agents Are Important
• Agents are a low risk, low cost way of recruiting international students
• They provide fast, direct access to local markets, using local
languages and business customs
• In some countries, as many as 80% of international students go
through agents
• They provide not just quantity, but also student quality
• Agents save work & time for admissions departments
What Agents Can Do For Institutions
• Represent institution on a year round basis
• Improve “application -> admission” conversion rates
• Provide institutions with reliable local market information
• Distribute institutional promotional material on a continual basis
• Advertise in targeted local media and handle translations
• Represent institutions at local fairs and college days
• Manage enquiries received by institutional international offices
• Arrange student appointments & presentation opportunities
• Pass on post-study feedback (positive/negative)
What Agents Do For Students
• A trustworthy and accountable local contact
• Give advice to students, and parents !!
• Communicate with students in their native language, bearing in
mind local sensitivities
• Suggest an optimal institution / student match
• Provide valuable counseling services in a timely manner
• Deliver useful added-value services (visa, flight, insurance)
• Provide ongoing support
How To Select Agents
• What geographical area do they cover?
• Company history, company structure & number of staff?
• How many students do they handle each year?
• What other schools do they represent (#, type, location)?
• Can they provide references?
• Are they members of an association, follow professional standards?
• Have they completed any agency testing?
• What is their promotional and marketing strategy?
Creating An Agent Contract
• Define respective roles & responsibilities
• Mention business plan (marketing strategy, budget)
• Give key performance indicators (quantity / quality)
• Outline exact compensation model
• Exclusivity if and when
• Dispute resolution guidelines
• Duration of contract including termination clauses
How To Support Agents
• Provide comprehensive information via an agent manual
• Marketing assistance (hardcopy, CD, web)
• Conduct agent training sessions giving regular updates
• Stay in touch – phone calls, letters, newsletters, emails
• Integrate agents into your overseas marketing plan
• Monitor results and review procedures
• Ensure a rapid response time to agents queries
• Organize agent familiarization trips – increases agent’s knowledge,
and enhances personal relationships
What Agents Can’t / Won’t / Shouldn’t Do For
Your Institution
• Make admissions decisions (They can be
effective pre-screeners, however)
• Be your entire international recruitment strategy
• Know everything about your school and its
admissions without attention and training
• Control your brand name in that country
• Overwhelm your team with unqualified
applicants
Finding Potential Agents – Approaches
• ICEF workshops (North America, Dubai,
Beijing etc.)
• American International Recruitment Council
• NAFSA conference
• Recruiting tours / overseas student fairs
• Via inquiries
• Referrals from colleagues
• Alumni
Vetting Agencies: How To Assure That
You Have The Right Agents For Your
Institution?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ask for and check references
AIRC certification
ICEF – conference participants
Association memberships
Personal interaction / questionnaires
Proof of licensing in own country
Referrals from colleagues
Close monitoring early in a relationship
Questions While Considering Agents To
Represent Your Institution
• Does the agency know US higher education?
• Does the agency know US visa regulations?
• What other similar/peer schools does the agency
represent?
• How important is the USA in their product mix?
• How do they work with their other institutional
clients?
• Is the agency asking for up-front marketing
expenses?
Questions While Considering Agents To
Represent Your Institution
•
•
•
•
How do students tend to find this agency?
How many years has it existed?
What is the agency’s fee structure?
Does it or its counselors have certifications
/ endorsements / memberships to
professional organizations (with stated
standards)
Counseling Concerns –
University’s Perspective
• Quality applicants (ready to succeed)
• Volume of applicants
• Appropriateness of applicants – good match for
university
• Transparency and ethics in the recruiting process
• Accuracy of information – management of
expectations
• Proper image of university is conveyed
Admissions Concerns – Agent’s
Perspective
• Clarity on admissions policies, procedures, targets
and profile
• Quantified selectivity of the university (GPA, test
scores etc.)
• Fast turnaround for applications
• Consistent turnaround for applications
• Programs / degrees that are effectively “off-limits”
• Programs / degrees with flexibility and interest in
growth
After Decision To Appoint An
Agency
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not-too-scary agreement
Annual plan to define expectations
“Product knowledge” - visit to campus?
Training – counseling points on your school
Support and appropriate marketing materials
Open and timely communication/correspondence
Forwarding of inquiries to agent
Ideas To Utilize Agents On Visits
To Countries
•
•
•
•
Co-represent university at student fairs
Interviews with pre-screened candidates
Arranged public presentations
Training of counseling staff for “product
knowledge”
• School and other institutional visits
“Two-Way” Accountability – Some
Suggestions
• Put expectations in writing – targets for
enrolling qualified students, turnaround
times for applications
• Annual review of performance on both
sides
“Two-Way” Accountability – Some
Suggestions
• Surveying students who attend your
institution
• Tracking GPA of students referred
• Review use of your logo and name in all
marketing collateral and websites
Benefits to Agents as Partners
• Empowers the student – students know who to
trust
• Empowers the university – they have trusted
representatives acting on their behalf
• Pay on a commission basis – compensation is
based on performance
• Use of agents offsets many of the initial costs of
international student recruitment (keeps staff
costs down)
In summary
• As recruitment becomes increasingly competitive, agents are now
an integral component of any international strategy
• Select agents carefully, ensure that they are of quality
• Only appoint agents suitable to your institution, be selective
• Ensure agents are part of an integrated marketing plan
• Leverage agents in other marketing activities (fairs, internet,
alumni, advertising)
• Invest sufficient time and resources from the start
• Communicate regularly and support agents effectively
• Review your requirements and contracts periodically
Case Study: University of
Cincinnati’s International
Recruitment Strategy
UC was the first major research university in the US to openly
adopt agency-based international student recruiting, and it did
so while simultaneously leading a national movement for
industry standards. In July 2008, the American
International Recruitment Council (AIRC) was formed by
UC to develop standards for international student recruitment
and a certification process for international student recruiting
agencies.
The UC Philosophy on Agents
• Student treatment is top priority
– Students should not be mislead by agent or university
• Agent network size depends on the amount of support we can
give; not number of students we want
• Agent-University relationship is promoted (partnership)
• Implementing an Agent Management system (UCosmic) was a
priority
• Tracking results is critical
1. Commission process
2. Student satisfaction
3. Student academic progress
4. Return on investment from agents
Where UC Is Now:
Representative Network
UC has 48 representative agencies in 35
countries
1.Australia
11. India
2. Bahrain
12. Jordan
3. Bhutan
13. Korea, Republic
4. Burma (Myanmar)
of (South)
5. Canada
14. Kuwait
6. China
15. Macau
7. Colombia
16. Mexico
8. Denmark
17. Nepal
9. Finland
18. Netherlands
19. New Zealand
10. Hong Kong
20. Norway
21. Oman
22. Pakistan
23. Qatar
24. Saudi Arabia
25. Singapore
26. South Africa
27. Sri Lanka
28. Sweden
29. Taiwan
30. Thailand
31. Turkey
32. United Arab
Emirates
33. UK
34. Vietnam
35. Zimbabwe
Regional Staff to Provide
Support for Agency Network
UC uses dedicated representatives in China (2), India
(1) and Vietnam (1). We have hired full-time
representatives (country coordinators) who train staff in
the other representative offices and function as an
extension of our admissions office.
Dedicated Staff for Working
with Recruiting Agencies
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Director of International Admissions
Director of International Services
Asst. Director – Agent Network
Asst. Director – Marketing
Asst. Director – Processing
Business Manager (Commission Payments)
Four regional staff (2 China, 1 India, 1 Vietnam)
Changes UC Has Made In Support
Of Our Agent Network
• Created standard contract and commission rate (9%)
• Implemented new Application Fee structure.
• Developed our first International Student Prospectus currently
on fifth version.
• Developed a comprehensive Representative Manual (requires
frequent updating).
• Conduct regular site visits for training and recruiting at
agent offices and host country coordinators for on-campus training
• Engage the entire university in the recruitment strategy
taking advantage of opportunities from student and
faculty travel
Upcoming Support
for Agents
• Developing on-line training modules for agents
• Expanding marketing resources for agent network
• Set of tools (videos, graphics, etc.) that all can use
• Creating agency-specific marketing plans
• Goal of holding an annual on-campus training for
representatives.
• Developing communication plan to keep agents
updated and motivated
Agent Management System (UCosmic)
UCosmic is a comprehensive and dynamic data –management system that allows the university
to track the breadth of our international activities and agreements. Windows of activity include:
Agency Management Module
Faculty Degrees Earned Abroad
Activity by Foreign Institution
Education Abroad
Programs/Destinations
Feeder Institutions
Faculty International Activity
Corporate International Activity
International Student Organizations
The University of Cincinnati and SUNY launched the UCosmic Consortium in January 2011.
It is an international open –source software consortium open to institutions, foundations,
government agencies and independent consultants worldwide.
Agent Management
Module for UCosmic
The Agent Management Module in UCosmic helps UC manage our
relationships with agents. Key functionality include:
Application Management
Agreement Management
Commission Management
Relationship Management – communications, trainings, student histories,
etc.
UCosmic Demo: https://www.uc.edu/webapps/ucosmic/
Student Success
At the start of fall semester 2012 UC
International Services worked with our
office of Institutional Research to prepare
an assessment of the success/retention of
students who matriculated at UC and
were recruited by agency
representatives.
Key Findings
• There is no statistical significance in in the average of GPAs of
most agencies. However, some agencies are recruiting more
and better students than others.
• There was a statistically significant difference between the
average First-Year GPAs and Cumulative GPAs of AgencyRecruited and Non-Agency Recruited students (non-agency
students performed slightly better).
• There is a statistically significant difference between AgencyRecruited students and Non-Agency Recruited students in
regard to likelihood of success. (Agency-recruited students
perform better).
Education agents
Independent research on
behalf of the AIRC
November 2011
Tom Baynton,
Research Manager
Results - students
Why did you use this agency?
7%
4%
8%
33%
Has a good reputation generally
Recommendation by friend
Recommendation by a family member
15%
Recommendation by school/university, e.g. tutor
Offered best value for money
Other
33%
This highlights the importance of peers in influencing choice of agency.
A third of respondents chose their agency due to recommendation by a
friend.
Base number: 136
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
60
Results - students
What services did your agent provide?
Assisting with completion of application for admission
88%
Visa application/interview preparation
74%
Counseling on identifying the appropriate institution to study
71%
Communication with institutions regarding other processes…
59%
Assessment of education credentials
59%
Pre-departure orientation on U.S.
53%
Critique of required essays
47%
Standardized test preparation (TOEFL; IELTS; GRE, GMAT, etc.)
47%
Airline reservations and other accommodations
44%
Currency conversion and electronic transfer of funds
22%
Other
Base number: 135
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A range of services are used, with the most common being assistance
with the applications process for admission.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
61
Results - students
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
(% agree)
The agent reduced the time and effort needed to complete
application
83%
The agent was knowledgeable about the institutional application
processes
81%
The agent was well informed about U.S. higher Education?
77%
The agent described the institution accurately
73%
The agent provided valuable services for my visa application
71%
The agent provided valuable pre-departure orientation services
61%
The agent reduced my overall costs, e.g. via application fee
waivers; money exchange discounts; etc.
45%
The agent was pushy or forceful with me during the application/
enrollment process
Base number: 132
41%
0%
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
62
Results - students
To what extent do you think your agent influenced you when making your choice
of higher education institution?
9%
I chose to attend my institution solely on the
recommendation of the agent
23%
The agent had significant influence on my decision
29%
The agent had some influence on my decision
The agent had no influence at all on my decision
40%
Agents are clearly very influential on students’ choice of institution but
only 9% claimed to have been solely reliant on the advice of their
agent.
Base number: 128
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
63
Results - students
On the whole, do you feel the services you received represented value for the money?
15%
Yes
No
85%
The majority feel that the services that they receive represent value for
money.
Base number: 136
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
64
Results - students
Overall, how satisfied are you with the services of your education agent(s)?
16%
32%
Very satisfied
6%
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
45%
Base number: 128
The majority are satisfied with the services of their education agents
but 16% are very dissatisfied and a further 6% dissatisfied, which is
concerning.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
65
Results - students
Would you recommend the use of education agents (professional
representatives) to other international students when applying to U.S.
colleges/universities?
6%
11%
Yes, and use the same agent I used
Yes, but use a different agent than I
used
No, do not use any agent
83%
Base number: 126
Whilst all of the institutions that responded would recommend the use of
education agents, 6% of the student respondents would not recommend
them. Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
66
Results
US institutions
Slide 67
Results - institutions
How many agencies do you use?
1%
14%
26%
5 or fewer
6-10
11-15
18%
16-20
21-50
11%
More than 50
Don't know
10%
19%
Base number:
72
All responding institutions used agents to recruit international students.
Great variation in the number of recruiting agents used by institutions.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
68
Results - institutions
When selecting an agent, do you require a formal contract to be signed with
your recruiting agents?
1%
7%
Yes
No
Don't know
92%
Base number:
72
The vast majority (92%) but not all institutions require a formal contract
to be signed when using recruiting agents. However, 7% do not require
a contract.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
69
Results - institutions
When selecting an agent, do you require AIRC certification?
4%
17%
15%
Require AIRC Certification
Prefer AIRC Certification
Have no policy regarding AIRC certification
Don't know
64%
Base number:
72
Approx. 1 in 6 institutions require AIRC certification, although the
majority (64%) state that they prefer agencies to have AIRC
certification.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
70
Results - institutions
Would you consider moving towards requiring all new agents you select to
have AIRC certification?
40%
Yes
No
60%
Base number:
60
Of those that did not currently require agents to be AIRC certified, 60%
would consider moving towards it being a requirement...
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
71
Results - institutions
...but 40% would not.
We have many good agents who are not
yet AIRC certified and we would want to
continue working with these organizations.
AIRC certification is not cheap. Probably,
not all good agencies may have resources
to go through the certification process.
This is too limiting, especially in markets
which have few agents, who are easily
known by us.
Base number:
21
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
72
Results - institutions
Do you measure how satisfied your students are with their use of agents?
17%
24%
Yes
No
Don't know
59%
Base number:
71
Nearly a quarter of respondents measure how satisfied their students
are with their use of agents.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
73
Results - institutions
Do you pay the recruiting agents for their services?
6%
Always
40%
54%
Sometimes (depends on
circumstances)
Never
Base number:
70
Most institutions pay agents at least sometimes but only 54% pay all
the time.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
74
Results - institutions
Please indicate how agents are compensated for their services? (multiple
choice)
Commission based on percentage of paid tuition
52%
Flat fee per head basis
41%
Marketing fee
15%
Other
Base number:
66
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Commission based on paid tuition is the most common approach to
paying agents (52%) but a ‘flat fee per head’ is also used by 41% of
respondents.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
75
Results - institutions
Please indicate the typical percentage of paid tuition that you pay as
commission:
50%
45%
45%
40%
35%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
10%
6%
3%
5%
Base number:
31
0%
0%
1% - 2%
3% - 5%
6% - 9%
10% - 14%
15% - 20%
More than 20%
Commission rates paid are typically between 10% and 20% of paid
tuition.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
76
Results - institutions
Please indicate the typical flat fee that you pay per head:
45%
42%
40%
35%
30%
25%
19%
20%
19%
19%
$1501 - $2000
More than $2000
15%
10%
5%
Base number:
26
0%
0%
$1 - $500
$501 - $1000
$1001 - $1500
A typical flat fee per head is between US$1,000 and US$1,500.
Note: This is based upon a small respondent base so is not a
conclusive
result.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
77
Results - institutions
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements: (% agree)
Our agents are knowledgeable about institutional
application processes
79%
Our agents are well informed about U.S. higher education
78%
Our agents provide valuable services for visa applications
68%
Our agents provide valuable pre-departure orientation
services
64%
Our agents send us highly qualified students
64%
Our agents reduce our overall recruiting costs
60%
Our agents help reduce fraud
Base number:
68
58%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Most respondents agree that their agents are well informed and provide
valuable services, e.g. pre-departure information, visa applications.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
78
Results - institutions
Please estimate how often you do each of the following:
Communicate/update agents on institutional
processes/changes
50%
Produce and distribute a manual for agents
33%
Evaluate performance of agents
24%
Provide local language marketing and promotional
materials to your agents
23%
Travel to agents to provide in-person training
Host agents on campus for training
17%
0%
23%
20%
5% 15%
23%
12%
24%
27%
9%
24%
39%
8%
18%
25%
20%
15% 3%
14%
18%
8% 5% 17%
8%
17%
31%
17%
17%
Provide internet or student leads to your agents 5% 11%
Base number:
66
14%
29%
Provide training via Skype or other electronic means
Provide student scholarships to top performing agents
32%
6%
Always - 5
4
Sometimes - 3
2
20%
Never - 1
64%
42%
17%
12%
48%
40%
60%
80%
15%
100%
There is relatively good communication between institutions and agents
but less emphasis on evaluating the performance of agents (29%
always do
this).
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
79
Results - institutions
On the whole, do you feel the services you receive from your agent(s)
represent value for the money?
5%
Yes
No
95%
Base number:
65
The vast majority feel that the services that they receive from agents
represents value for money.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
80
Results - institutions
Overall, how satisfied are you with the services of your education agent(s)?
5%
3%
27%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
66%
Base number:
64
The vast majority are satisfied with the services of their education
agents.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
81
Results - institutions
Would you recommend the use of education agents (professional
representatives) to other U.S. colleges/universities?
0%
11%
Yes, and use the same
agent(s)
Yes, but use different
agent(s)
No, do not use agents
89%
Base number:
65
All respondents would recommend the use of education agents to
others.
Strictly copyright © IGI Services 2011
82
Lessons Learned
Things to Keep in Mind:
– Agent management requires a serious commitment and
hidden expenses
– University generally gets out what it puts in
– Have realistic expectations from agents
– Have realistic expectation of ourselves
• Size of the network
• Diversity of our agent portfolio
• Balance between quality vs. quantity
Lessons Learned Continued
• Hidden cost of training agents and
maintaining network
• Develop recruitment materials for agents –
perhaps even regional materials
• Agents do not replace need for travel –
may actually increase need to travel
Agents Are Not
The Only Answer
Need a balanced approach to recruitment
– Work with commission-based agents
– Institutional Partnerships, such as ELS, foreign
universities and community colleges
– Direct high school outreach
– EducationUSA
– Alumni and traveling students
– Direct marketing options
Creative Strategies For
Overcoming Barriers to
Recruiting Internationally
Barrier
Lacked a university-wide
•mechanism
to track global
activity
Strategy
• Create UCosmic to
manage our global
collaborations
Email Agent
Receives
Email UC Int’l
Receives
Commission Management
Contract Management
Creative Strategies Continued
Strategy
Barrier
• Only accepted TOEFL for
admission
•Did not have an Intensive
English Program
• Admissions Process too
cumbersome in countries
where high school lasts 3
years
• Now accept IELTS,
PEARSON, ELS Language
Services, degree from English
speaking institutions, SAT or
ACT scores
Signed a contract to allow ELS
•Language
Services to provide
Intensive English on a third party
basis
Not require international
•students
to submit Middle School
documents
Creative Strategies Continued
Barrier
• High costs for out of State
tuition too expensive in many
markets
Strategy
• Implement Global Scholarship
discounting tuition
• Develop 2+2 or 3+1
articulation programs
• Connecting with our regional
campuses for pathways
• Create an “International
Outreach” scholarship- lesser
percentage of out-of-state
Creative Strategies Continued
Barrier
• Most attractive programs at capacity
or extremely competitive
•Tough to place international students
in co-ops in certain fields (Aerospace
Engineering)
Strategy
• Identify new, coursework-based
programs at the graduate level
(Meng; Mchem; LLM;)
•Develop internationally based
co-op opportunities
Creative Strategies Continued
Barrier
• No options for students who do
not want a degree (reverse study
abroad)
• No data on student
satisfaction/dissatisfaction
Strategy
• Establish short-term study
abroad programs in specific
fields (business,
environmental studies,
American identity and politics)
• Benchmark the international
student experience
(International Student
Barometer –UC was first to
use it in 2005)
Creative Strategies Continued
Barrier
Strategy
• Limited staff and resources for
extensive travel
• Engage the entire university in the
recruitment strategy –leveraging
student/faculty travel
• Influx of students at the
undergraduate level has
demonstrated that our English
Proficiency requirement is low in
many programs
Develop a bridge program for students
whose English Proficiency scores
met minimum English Proficiency
requirements but not optimal
requirements
Creative Strategies Continued
Barrier
Strategy
• No options for students who do not
want a degree (reverse study abroad)
• Establish short-term study abroad
programs in specific fields (business,
environmental studies, American identity
and politics)
• No data on student
satisfaction/dissatisfaction
• Benchmark the international student
experience (International Student
Barometer –UC was first to use it in
2005)
Creative Strategies Continued
Barrier
• Limited resources to provide the
support necessary to sustain a
comprehensive International
recruitment strategy and provide
services to increased numbers or
international students
Strategy
• Implemented a Performancebased reinvestment funding
model
Performance-Based
Reinvestment
In 2005, the University of Cincinnati developed it’s first
International Strategic Enrollment Plan. In order to fund
the Plan, which included creating an International
Admissions Office, agreeing to pay commissions to
recruiting representatives, and other significant
investments, we persuaded campus leadership to adopt
a new approach to funding that we refer to as
“Performance-Based Reinvestment.”
Named and conceptualized by Mitch Leventhal –former Vice
Provost for International Affairs at UC and current Vice
Chancellor at SUNY.
Performance –Based
Reinvestment Continued
The core principal of Performance –Based Reinvestment is to create a “virtuous circle”
that connects new income associated with international student tuition with the resources
needed to recruit and manage a larger international student population. It also calls for
sharing revenue with other areas like Study Abroad and internationalization of the
curriculum.
Recruitment,
marketing and
Fee-paying
Global Relationship
International
building
Students
Curricular
Internationalization
Financial
Resources
Study Abroad
Expansion
Performance –Based Reinvestment
Continued
• The forecasting model can provide you with the tools
needed to make a compelling case. You can
demonstrate in concrete numbers how goals and
allocations affect each other and the desired
outcomes.
• Using this model, you can demonstrate the
advantages of redirecting some percentage of
incoming international tuition revenue back towards
international operations holistically.
Where We Started
• One full time staff member in International Admissions
after two years of debate
• No international strategy
• No real internationalization experience
• Few financial resources
• Relied on word of mouth marketing; resulted in grad
students from same countries going in to same
programs
• 2,000 international students; 90% graduate
Where UC is Now:
International Admissions Office
• Reports to Undergrad Admissions Offices
– Director
– Asst. Director – Agent Network
– Asst. Director – Marketing
– Asst. Director – Processing
– China Coordinator
– A.O. – Processing
– Sr. A.O. – Grad Recruitment
– Sr. A.O. – Partnerships
– Four regional staff (2 China, 1 India, 1 Vietnam)
• Will increase foreign-based staff soon
Changes UC has made in
support of our agent network
• Created standard contract and commission rate.
• Implemented new Application Fee structure.
• Developed our first International Student Prospectus –
currently on fifth version.
• Developed a comprehensive Representative Manual –
requires frequent updating.
• Conduct regular site visits for training and recruiting at
agent offices and host country coordinators for
on-campus training
• Engage the entire university in the recruitment
strategy – taking advantage of opportunities from
student and faculty travel
Where UC Is Now
•
•
•
•
National leader in the agent movement
Actively involved with AIRC
Developing international strategy
Focusing almost as much on support and
retention issues as recruitment and admissions
• Developed three international scholarship
programs
• Opening offices throughout the world
• 3,400 international students; 66% graduate
Questions?