International Recruitment Agents Report

Context

Over a number of years, the Students’ Union has raised various concerns over the recruitment process which the University employs internationally, and particularly the use of ‘international recruitment agents[1]’. These concerns have resulted largely from students engaging with the Advice and Representation Centre[2] due to problems they have incurred either upon arrival or later on during the course of their studies. This report is being compiled at the current time following a series of discussions between Jo Goodman, the current Students’ Union Welfare Officer and Chris Marlin, the Pro Vice Chancellor (International).

Concerns

The concerns on the part of the Students’ Union largely centre on the following areas:

  • The role of the recruitment agents – i.e. relationship with student/University departments
  • The accuracy of information imparted, particularly around academic issues, housing and employment
  • The way in which agents are incentivised

This report will now explore each of these three areas in greater detail.

The role of recruitment agents

A recurring theme in the student cases that have come to the attention of the Students’ Union is the apparently close relationship between the student and the agent who recruited them prior to the student’s admission to Sussex. They often feel that the agent has gone out of their way to help them get to Sussex and that their interaction was more akin to a friendship than a professional relationship. While there are clearly advantages for the student in feeling that someone is working on their behalf, this brings added difficulty if the student is unaware for example of the incentivisation process and the fact that the agent has something personally to gain through successful recruitment of the student. It can also lead to high levels of upset and disappointment if this friendship ceases following the student’s recruitment, often when they encounter difficulty with their course or experience at Sussex and feel that they require and are entitled to the same level of support from the agent that they received prior to arrival – this is exacerbated where they feel that they have a close friendship with the agent. On more than one occasion students have remarked that they have made various attempts to contact the agent who recruited them post-arrival and have failed to get any response whatsoever, some even going to the effort of sending their parents to the agent’s office in their home country on their behalf in order to get a response. It seems therefore that there is a need for students to have a greater understanding of what the role of the agent is from the outset – if they are to be a friend and advocate of the student, this must continue beyond the point of successful recruitment, whereas if they are to be largely working in the interests of themselves, their organisation and the institution, this must also be clear so as not to give the student false expectations and to feel retrospectively that they have misplaced their trust. The British Council’s Guide to Good Practice for Education Agents recommends that agents should “act at all times in the best interests of students or prospective students as well as (UK) partner institutions” suggesting that the optimum relationship is one where the agent is seeking the best possible outcome for both the student and the institution. In order for this to be achieved, it is vital that the student is absolutely clear on the boundaries and context of their relationship with the agent.

There is also concern regarding the level of relationship that the agents have with the institution and various departments within it. It seems that although they may receive regular updates on things changing within the University, as well as visiting on an occasional basis, there seems to be little requirement for them to either put students directly in touch with the relevant department, direct them to recent University publications or web pages or to check that information is up to date and correct. Following on from the various experiences the Students’ Union has had with these cases, there is a strong feeling that the role of the agent should be more akin to that of a signposter rather than a comprehensive guide to the institution and all processes within it. We would not expect any member of staff working on a daily basis on Sussex campus to have a full understanding of the way all University departments work and it therefore seems unrealistic to effectively expect this from representatives working at a distance. The implications of the current role of agents with regard to imparting information will be discussed in greater detail in the next section.

If the role of international recruitment agents were to be clarified to that of an informed signposter, it seems that there could be a significant impact on student’s abilities to take control of their own individual situations. If students are empowered to communicate directly with departments with the support of agents, they are more likely to arrive well-informed and in a position to make the most of their studies, as well as resolve any issues they encounter themselves rather than seeking continued contact with the agent. This could be an opportunity to encourage personal independence and development from before the student even arrives at Sussex.

Accuracy of information imparted by agents

The British Council’s Guide to Good Practice for Education Agents states that agents “shall not knowingly or by a failure of professional standards provide or disseminate false, incomplete or misleading information” in order to allow prospective students to make an “informed judgement.” However, inaccuracy of information provided by recruitment agents is probably the most frequent complaint that the Students’ Union receives from students who have been recruited in this way. Some of this information appears to simply be outdated whereas some appears to entail a tendency to ‘oversell’ the offering at the University or to involve an element of easing the student’s concerns. While it is understandable why an agent working to targets and incentives may wish to overstate certain elements of study at Sussex in order to finalise the student’s recruitment, as has previously been discussed with both Chris Marlin and Marcus Williams, Director of Student Recruitment, the most effective recruitment agent is a satisfied alumnus and a University’s reputation is built on the experiences of those who study there, both through formal mechanisms such as the International Student Barometer, but also through informal social and familial networks which may have an even greater influence in many international contexts. In order to create these satisfied students, it is vital that expectations are met and therefore the context in which these expectations are set, the period of recruitment, requires special scrutiny in order to ensure that these expectations are realistic from the outset. The three areas in which the issue of misinformation most frequently comes to the fore are with regard to academic provision and course content, issues around housing and those around employability both during the course and following. This report will now explore each of these areas in greater detail.

Academic matters

For many international students, the global reputation of a degree in the UK is often a significant driver in them choosing to come and study here and therefore one of the key areas where they require accurate information prior to application. Cases seen by the Students’ Union have variously involved misinformation regarding departments’ connections with professional bodies, course content and crucially the level of prior knowledge/experience required for the programme. It has also previously included cases where students’ levels of English have been insufficient to be able to succeed at their chosen course and there have been allegations that this has been masked by agents through forged language certificates and editing of research proposals. These factors can have a huge impact on an individual’s ability to make the most of their course, succeed academically and can lead to high levels of dissatisfaction throughout the student’s time at Sussex. This is therefore an area which appears to be in need of review in terms of how agents interact with prospective students and how these students interact with information about their chosen course of study.

Housing

The second area where the Students’ Union have come across significant issues is that of housing. Students often find that they cannot access the accommodation that they believed they would be able to on arrival and this applies to both University managed accommodation and the private rented sector. I will first address the issues with University managed accommodation. Several students who were told that they would be able to stay in University accommodation by agents found on arrival that either they were not eligible or that there was no record of communication from agents to the Housing Office to secure their accommodation. This has led to many students incurring additional costs through needing to stay in temporary and often expensive accommodation. It seems that a system in which students are required to interact directly with the Housing Office to establish their housing status would be preferable to the current system where agents act on their behalf and due to the scale of students they are dealing with may come into difficulties with ensuring that accurate information is submitted on behalf of each individual student.

In addition to this, several students on arrival in the UK, particularly this year following the housing shortage have expressed surprise at the requirements of the private rented sector with regard to guarantors. Many students appear to have arrived with the understanding that securing accommodation in Brighton and the surrounding area would be relatively simple and were then faced with the prospect of having to supply often six months rent up front in order to secure accommodation. In addition to this, our recent Rate Your Landlord survey[3] indicates that many more international students were only able to sign for accommodation after they have begun their studies (41.9% of international students as opposed to 19.3 % of home students) and, worryingly, 38.6% of international students signed for a property before viewing it (only 11.9% of home students do this). 17.9% of international students report being unable to sign for a house due to the extortionate up front deposits required. It is vital that in order to have a positive experience in the private rented sector whilst at Sussex, students are able to access adequate and accurate information, whether this is through direct contact with the Housing Office or simply being directed to the Students’ Union’s Moving On publication and being aware that support is available. There is also the option on the part of the University of acting as a guarantor for students who are unable to provide a UK homeowner as guarantor in order to allow them to access the housing market – a recent Unipol/UKCISA report on Managing Accommodation for International Students suggests that this is a practice which is becoming more and more common among universities in the UK and that those institutions who have taken on this responsibility “have suffered negligible losses as a result”[4].

Employability

The final area in which concerns have frequently been raised by students is employability. Many students report having been told that finding part time work opportunities to fund their studies in the UK would be relatively simple, only to find on arrival that this is not the case and therefore finding themselves in unanticipated financial difficulty over the course of their time in the UK, potentially even leading to them needing to intermit or drop out entirely. Students have often also expressed disappointment at the level of opportunity there is following study to attain work experience relevant to their area of study. For many, part of the appeal of a degree in the UK is the opportunity to use the post study work visa to gain experience in the field of their choice. However, many have found that in practice there is little available due to the fierce levels of competition which they had not been made aware of. Some have even found that the area they wished to work in is in a ‘protected’ category, meaning that UK applicants would be favoured over them. More accurate information in this area would allow students to make better informed choices regarding study in the UK, as well as preventing students potentially either needing to leavefor financial reasons once they’re here or having a less than positive experience due to lack of employment opportunities. There are also issues to explore regarding specific careers support for international students which could be an area in need of review in conjunction with the Careers and Employability Centre. Clearly much of this will be subject to the Home Office and UK Borders Agency decisions regarding the future of post study work visas and the international student visa system as a whole.

Incentivisation

The final area of concern for the Students’ Union is that of incentivisation. As far as we aware, currently agents are remunerated in addition to their basic salary on the basis of how many students they have ‘successfully recruited’. The Students’ Union would like to encourage a broader understanding of what is meant by this; is it genuinely a ‘success’ to have a student’s foot in the door given that they may go on to face any or all of the difficulties explained above or can it only be considered as such once that student has graduated from Sussex having had a positive experience? We urge the University to review the incentivisation process in order that it reflects whether that agent’s work has led to success for both the student and as a result, for the reputation of Sussex as an institution. While we understand that the University is concerned about ‘oversurveying’ students, as far as we understand there is currently both an ‘acceptors and decliners’ survey and one for post-arrival. If we are to move to a longer term view of experience and ‘success’ it seems that the best approach would be to integrate these surveys which effectively both monitor the student’s first point of contact with the institution and add a commitment to a survey or focus groups towards the end of the student’s time at Sussex to monitor specifically whether expectations were met – i.e. whether the expectations set up by the agents were realistic.

In addition, it is vital for the accountability of both the agents and the institution as a whole that any incentivisation system is transparent and that students are aware of the relationship of the agents to the institution.

Recommendations

From this report we would like to draw the following recommendations:

  • A review of the role of agents with a view to moving towards a more facilitative focus, acting as an assistive signposter for students.
  • Greater clarity for students both in terms of their relationship with the agent and the agent’s relationship to the institution.
  • Better channels of communication for students and agents to interact directly with various departments of the University, particularly schools and the Housing Office.
  • Students to be directed to University and Students’ Union publications and web pages rather than receiving the majority of information verbally as this makes it difficult to ensure accuracy and clarity.
  • Students to be encouraged to be more proactive during the application process in order for them to be better equipped to act independently on arrival.
  • More clarity provided to students regarding the University’s housing application process – particularly around the various deadlines and requirements, as well as regular updates on their application’s progress
  • Greater support in looking for accommodation in the private sector – guidance on standard practice including that of charging several months’ rent up front. Many universities act as guarantors for students in this situation in order to enable them to access accommodation in the private rented sector.
  • Greater levels of objective information provided to students at the point of application regarding the availability of both part time work during their course and post study work in their chosen field, as well as an idea of what support is available to them. The opportunity to provide more tailored support for international students in this area could also be explored.
  • An integration of the ‘acceptors and decliners’ survey with the post-arrival survey in order to accommodate for further research such as an exit survey later on in the student life cycle to examine whether the expectations set out pre-arrival have been met through students’ experiences of study at Sussex.
  • Incentivisation to be based partly on the findings of this research rather than simply on numbers of successful recruits in order that agents are aiming to provide the institution with satisfied graduates as opposed to simply students enrolled at the University.

Conclusion