New Orleans—At the National Association for College Admission Counseling’s annual conference last week, I listened to many intense discussions about the use of commissioned agents to recruit foreign students. Each of those conversations reminded me that this issue is far more complex than it might seem at first.
The discussion, which has become very emotional, echoed the continuing debates over the role of independent college counselors, who are often painted with a broad brush, as if they are all the same. They aren’t. By the same token, not all agents are shady operators.
Nonetheless, the debate over agents is different from the debate over independent counselors. For one thing, many high-school counselors and admissions officers here said they didn’t oppose the use of agents per se: it’s the “per head” compensation system that troubles them.
Whether NACAC ends up taking a strong stand on the use of commissioned agents is anybody’s guess. For now, the association will do what big-tent associations often do: gather many perspectives and weigh various arguments, slowly.
In an article published Sunday night, my colleague Karin Fischer and I report on NACAC’s appointment of Philip A. Ballinger, director of undergraduate admissions at the University of Washington, to lead a commission that will study the issue over the next 18 months. Mr. Ballinger, whom I have described as one of the profession’s deepest thinkers, seems like an apt choice to head a panel that will most likely grapple with many shades of gray. In an interview with The Chronicle last week, Mr. Ballinger said: “The image I have of the commission is an ear, a big ear, to listen to everything
The commission will surely hear the perspectives of admissions officers who agree with Minh-Ha Hoang, director of admissions at the University of San Diego. On Saturday, Ms. Hoang described how, in a world of tight budgets and sharp competition for applicants, many colleges need third-party help to recruit in overseas markets.
“For us, this is not a black-and-white issue,” Ms. Hoang said. “My belief is if we welcome agents into the fold and we are able to set guidelines, we are able to have a discussion about ethical practices.”
Recently, the University of San Diego hired IDP Education, an international student-placement firm, to help recruit in other nations. The firm charges partner colleges $2,500 for each student-client who ends up enrolling. Ms. Hoang said she was impressed so far with IDP, which she described as both ethical and cost-efficient. One firm that San Diego had considered hiring, she said, would have charged $20,000 a year to represent the university in just one country. That sum was equal to her office’s annual international travel budget for stops in 10 to 12 countries.
Ms. Hoang, who said she had gone to Banana Republic to buy a new outfit before her session, joked that she should have purchased a bulletproof vest. After all, many counselors stood up to say that per-head compensation could not possibly go hand in hand with ethical advising.
David Bushey, who helps coordinate IDP’s relationships with colleges in North America, said that wasn’t true. Not all agents operate the same way, he said. Moreover, while NACAC deliberates, commerce will continue, he said; whatever recommendations the association hands down a year and a half from now will not necessarily change anything.
“Agents,” Mr. Bushey said, ”aren’t going away.”
