In the competitive landscape of international student recruitment, many universities turn to agencies to increase international student enrolments.
These agent networks have become deeply entrenched and promise institutions access to a vast pool of students.
There are many success stories – depending on how you define success – but I am always surprised when I hear so many international students go to certain US locations that I myself find unappealing.
Then I realise the university uses agents who are not helping a student find a good fit but are pushing a particular university.
I commend agents and their partners who provide comprehensive and ethical work. However, as someone who has worked extensively in global engagement, I believe that these networks often do more harm than good for students, institutions, and the integrity of international education.
Let me explain. My institution previously worked with agents, then a pathway provider, and now my university does not work with agents at all.
When the decision to work with a pathway provider was made, we had to let all our agent partnerships expire due to a competition clause. We also had to discontinue all our recruitment efforts, and when the partnership ended, we were left with fewer international students enrolled than when our partnership began. I learned a lot from this experience.
When international admissions and recruitment transitioned back under my umbrella, I took some time researching best practices, understanding the ecosystem and the changes during our ‘dormant phase’ and creating a plan for the recruitment of international students to my university that aligned with our values. I set reasonable expectations based on our brand, cost, services, human resources, scholarships and timeline.
I participated in a recruitment tour, and have jokingly said it radicalised me against agents and narrowed my focus and strategy for our university
After months of research and continuing practical knowledge of international admissions, I chose strategic internationalisation partners that were neither agents, aggregators, nor edtech companies.
I participated in a recruitment tour, and have jokingly said it radicalised me against agents and narrowed my focus and strategy for our university.
Looking back, I am grateful for the time spent doing the admissions work. I learned what questions students ask, how quickly they expect answers, what level of support we as admissions professionals need to provide, who the students work with on the ground, where applications originate, degree trends, and communication strategies to students and counsellors.
Our commitment to fostering genuine global engagement, access, and a sense of belonging drives our recruitment efforts – not just looking for the quick wins. For both philosophical and ethical reasons, my recommendation and strategy is to avoid using agents.
I’ve found that many agencies prioritise profit over student welfare. Their incentives often lie in placing students in institutions that pay the highest commission rather than those that align with the student’s goals and aspirations. Sub-agents, who operate under less scrutiny, can exacerbate this problem by providing misleading information or charging exorbitant fees.
This system disproportionately affects the very students who need the most support, leaving them burdened by debt or stuck in programs that fail to deliver on promises. During our pathway time, I remember getting forwarded emails demanding I-20s because of how much the individual had already paid to an agent, and we had not yet even received an application.
For me, pushing students to universities that do not meet their academic or professional goals because they pay more is unconscionable.
I once received an email from a department chair because a new student showed up at his office, asking to be registered in classes. All she knew was her major, thus her appearance at his door.
He was concerned about her well-being as confused as she was. Thankfully he got the student to our offices. As I sat with her, helping her to set up multi-factor authentication with a non-US phone number (0/10 do not recommend) so she could access her university portal, she shared with me Telegram messages with email passwords and other information, and it became clear that an agent had applied on her behalf, used an email address she couldn’t access, and withheld key information to maintain control over the process. This left her at a severe disadvantage upon arrival.
We had no indication that the student was not who she said she was in her emails. We had no idea that none of the communications were reaching the actual student; in fact, we check to make sure that the emails are delivered, opened, and links are clicked, but she revealed she had not seen them.
While we do not support using agents as an institution, we recognise that students may use them independently.
The only thing we can do is empower students with transparent information, encourage direct applications, and provide robust support throughout the application, enrolment, and pre-departure process. Students do not need agents to succeed in applying to US institutions, and it is our responsibility to make that clear.
International recruitment practices often mirror the extractive relationships of colonialism
Federal law in the United States prohibits incentive compensation for domestic recruitment, yet the practice is allowed for international applicants. This discrepancy perpetuates a double standard: international students are treated not as equals to their domestic peers but as commodities that can be bought and sold in a profit-driven marketplace.
By participating in this system, US institutions are complicit in an exploitative ecosystem that devalues international students’ aspirations and contributions.
International recruitment practices often mirror the extractive relationships of colonialism, where wealthier nations benefit disproportionately at the expense of students from the Global South. How can we claim to decolonise our campuses while actively participating in a system that commodifies students from these regions?
This contradiction demands that universities critically re-evaluate their recruitment strategies and commit to ethical, student-centred approaches that align with their values of inclusion, equity and integrity.
So my advice to American colleagues is when it comes to agents, just say no. There is another way.
Do you want to be the next Secret IO? Comment below or contribute anonymously by emailing [email protected]
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The PIE News.
