Really, no really this is unbelievable. As I reviewing this mornings daily email updates in higher education I was literally amazed to see an article on commission based admissions. Until this morning it never occurred to me that public institutions would even consider paying its employees based on how many students they bring in. Specifically, this article refers to the recruitment of international students since commission based practices are not permitted for domestic students.
The article was in Inside Higher Ed and discussed how the National Assocaiton for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) released a draft policy in May that would not allow for admission offices to use commission based recruiters to recruit international students. Now, the NACAC has both for- and non- profit institutions in its association (a new trend according to the article) and some institutions (both for- and non- profit) use commission based admissions recruiters. A statement was released with the draft policy suggesting that having commission based admissions was unethical and could lead to admissions recruiters ignoring the needs or wants of the student.
Interesting enough after the draft policy was announced a few months later it was put on hold for two years. Why? The article cites administrators and policy makers but I am unsure. This topic came up before the US Senate in August of 2010 and was in an article in the Chronicle in August of 2010. During this time investigators had evidence of commission based admissions recruiters misleading students and providing questionable information. So again, my question is why? Why has a leading admissions association where other admissions offices probably get their best practices from decide to draft a policy a year after appearing before the Senate and then put it on hold for two years while knowing that unethical practices are going on and being questioned by the Senate?
While the NACAC has a statement saying that they are looking to there ethical guidelines they state in the same breath that international recruiting is an emerging market for schools in the midst of decline in budgets. What concerns me here is that we are starting or continuing to look at international students as revenue and not as students. If we look at higher education as a maturing market and that we need to find new ways to market ourselves to gain to consumers, what window of unethical practices are opened when we combine a mature market with commission based recruiters for international students.
What I also found interesting in the Inside Higher Ed article was a statement that read "Critics tend to say that there is something inherently unethical about students being advised by people who are paid in part on how many student they produce - a practice that US law bars for the recruitment of domestic students and that the ethics code...also bars." Now how can we bar a practice for our domestic students but allow it for international students? What does that say about our profession? What does it say about how we perceive the value of international students on our campuses? Are we embracing diversity or tuition dollars?
To me it seems it may be harder to reverse established policies and with the possibility of more institutions moving to commission based recruitment the NACAC may have difficulty enforcing a ban after waiting two years. Additionally, during these two years the NACAC will not take action on complaints that are filed. To borrow words from Renee Orlick, Director of Admissions Operations at Colorado State University, who was interviewed for the article, "I'm concerned that if we do nothing for two years, we wont be able to protect the student."
Karla, interesting post! I agree with your statement about the possibility of commission based admissions treating students as revenue rather than students. I do think there are several things to consider.
ReplyDeleteI believe we need to look at how much higher education is a business? Right now the global market is competitive, and from a business prospective institutes of higher education do need to do something to keep up. International students who are paying full tuition may be benefitting other students who live here in the United States.
As mentioned in the article, an increase an international enrollment will increase diversity on campus. http://chronicle.com/article/Admissions-Group-Wants-to-Hear/129163/ For some schools international admissions is one thing that is keeping universities alive in this economy. With all of this aside I whole heartily believe the welfare of the student should come first.
This is a great topic for debate and many people will feel very strongly one way or the other. My feelings on this are split.
ReplyDeleteHolly raises a good point in questioning how much higher education is like a business. Whether we like it or not, the economy has forced colleges and universities to become more businesslike, and truly focus on their bottom line. That being said, universities are not simply producing an easily identifiable good or service. It is much more complicated than that, as students are the customer and product.
Now, considering this businesslike approach, and the necessity of it, I see no real problem with recruiters earning more for bringing additional students through the doors of institutions. However, there needs to be standards set for what is right and wrong, and it will become more important than ever to correctly evaluate the character and ethics of recruiters being hired.
In business models across the country, and around the world, employees earn bonuses or commission for doing their job more effectively than their peers. I say reward the recruiters for a job well done.
Whether or not we like how it makes our students feel, or whether or not we are meeting their needs, international student education is a cash cow. We were just talking in our Scholarly writing class about how community colleges are re-orienting themselves to the recruitment of international students because a) it's a population that can highly benefit from CC's, especially in ESL programs and b) my goodness they bring in a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteWe pay recruiters for athletic programs and while I don't believe they're commission-based, they are paid to bring in students who will bring in revenue by way of Heisman trophies, bowl games, etc.
Is commission-based admissions practices for international students all that different than what student athlete recruiters are already doing? Logistically, it might cost more money to go overseas, but ultimately both sets of recruiters are looking to increase revenue for the institution. One just might look prettier than the other.
Though, I doubt that NACAC will have an easier time than the NCAA in regulating this.
Many for-profit institutions use commission based recruiting or quota models for recruiting students. It was interesting to read that some not-for profit institutions are making the switch, too.
ReplyDeleteWhat I always come back to with this conversation is that way I feel when I'm dealing with a salesperson who is recieiving a commission - hassled, harrassed and pushed into something I wasn't necessarily looking to do in the first place. From the recruiters stand point I have to wonder how they feel about the pressure to recruit when your compensation is on the line. Do they always adhere to the highest ethical standards? Do they feel professionally supported by their institutions? It would be interesting to hear from these professionals as this debate no doubt will continue to emerge.
I share some of Karla's concerns. It seems that higher education is still in high demand, so I wonder where the urge to pay staff based upon recruitment numbers comes from. The only conclusion that I have come up with is that the International community is unique. They pay a heck of a lot of money to attend our schools. It seems that it is simply economically feasible to pay folks to recruit these students.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that this practice could open the door to undue pressure on students as they make the decision on where to attend college. I wonder though, as colleges realize the need to become more business like to stretch the decreasing dollars that hey receive if this is not a viable solution to some of the economic problems. Is this a problem if recruiters are trained in such a way as to alleviate these problems. Of course there would be the propensity to mislead students, but are we really that cynical about folks who enter this profession, in whatever capacity.
It seems to me that with the proper training regarding sensitivity to student need coupled with close monitoring of recruiting practices that this approach is worthy of consideration.