The Other Side of the Coin – Agents and AIRC
Belinda Gallaugher
Director, Communications
Over the last couple of months I’ve been reading the online dialogue (and debate) over the potency of AIRC and its validity as the next strategic move for US international student recruitment.
There are certainly valid arguments being exchanged about whether or not AIRC as a conduit for international recruitment in the US will be an effective strategy. I can understand both sides of the debate - AIRC is a way to legitimize and regulate the use of agents overseas but also that AIRC may be an anemic vehicle for trying to control agents who operate on the other side of the world and in other languages.
However the one thing I’ve noticed is that not many agents have participated in this debate and I think that it is a valuable voice that’s being missed.
I want to take the opportunity to contribute toward and be an active participant in this conversation – as someone working on “the other side.”
Working for the first Chinese Education agent to be certified by AIRC I’m familiar with both what AIRC is aiming to achieve and why membership is imperative for agents wanting to embrace the US market. However there seem to be a couple of consistent concerns being raised about AIRC and I want to take a moment to address each of these from an agent’s perspective.
1. "Agents have false agendas." Genuine education agents in China are concerned with counseling Chinese students and helping them select the right academic institution for their needs. At EduGlobal our mission is to provide quality students to quality client institutions through dedication and innovation. Our counseling teams operate to this mandate and we make every effort to ensure success for both students and institutions. Like in any industry, there are always some whose reputation tarnishes the industry as a whole. I think certifying agencies is an exciting phase in US development because it will allow institutions to share best practices with agents about marketing their institutions and also act as a dialogue and market research mechanism whereby agents can share local market knowledge not accessible by institutions housed across boarders.
2. "AIRC will act as a filter."I think we can all agree relatively quickly that this is a good thing for US institutions and international students as it will ensure disingenuous agents are blocked from AIRC membership. However remember that it will also be very good for companies such as ourselves who make every effort to follow the best practices of AIRC and we have our own high level of rules regulations and code of ethics. The reason I say this is that by acting as a filter, AIRC will not only help to exclude dodgy services providers but will, by default, elevate those who are legitimate and hard working towards the growth of the industry.
3. "The 60+ pages of rules and guidelines will be sufficient." I agree that under the right conditions AIRC can be a win win for all parties involved. But there is a risk involved. The focus seems to be directed toward the rules and regulations set for agents, however I am concerned that institutions might get complacent with this. I think to be truly successful AIRC institutions must actively engage with such agent service providers to motivate, encourage and update us. Only in establishing a strong dialogue will AIRC truly be able to carry out it’s mandate.
It’s an exciting and critical time for AIRC and US institutions and an equally interesting time for certified AIRC agents as we look to establish a strong foundation for the promotion of US schools in China. I’m looking forward to seeing how the process evolves and how the various participants can work together.