This policy guidance (PDF) from the U.S. State Department’s states that all (EducationUSA) centers “must adhere to the following ethical standards as a condition of their centers’ voluntary association with, and continued support from, ECA (Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs). We understand that many advisers have been approached by commercial recruiters who have requested their assistance and support. We believe it is important to establish a uniform, worldwide policy to ensure that agents receive a consistent message from all EducationUSA centers.”
ECA’s Office of Academic Programs does not permit advising centers that receive support from ECA to become involved with commercial recruitment agents for the following reasons in bold. I present – in italics – another perspective, additional information and/or a counterpoint.
A. Commercial recruitment agents represent only those universities that pay them a fee, and commercial agents recruit exclusively for those universities. These commercial agents do not represent the breadth of the U.S. higher education system, nor can they represent U.S. universities equitably.
Not necessarily true. Some commercial agents charge differential fees – a lower fee for clients who are admitted to and attend a partner school and a higher rate for those who attend non-partner schools. “Double-dipping” (taking both a commission and a high fee) is not considered ethical. Other companies only charge their clients (students/parent) for the service and take no commission.
B. Commercial recruitment agents restrict the options available to foreign students in the U.S., a restriction that may lead students to choose a college or university that will not meet their needs. As a result, these students may have a less than satisfactory experience in the U.S., with lifelong ramifications for their educational and professional activities and views of the United States.
Commercial agents that engage in ethical business practices will strive to find the best possible match between a client’s qualifications, goals, preferences, ability to pay and an appropriate short list of schools. Anyone could have a “less than satisfactory experience” studying in the U.S. I’m not sure how that would affect their “views of the United States.” My hope is that wherever they study, they learn as much as they can about all facets of the host country’s society and culture: the good, the bad, etc.
C. Commercial recruitment agents understandably direct their services to students with the ability to pay. EducationUSA center association with commercial agents would undermine our public diplomacy message of outreach to well-qualified students from throughout society, including underserved sectors.
U.S. higher education is one of the most expensive in the world. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of international students who study in the U.S. are individuals “of means,” sons and daughters of their respective countries’ elites, including many who receive merit-based scholarships. While there are some inspirational “rags-to-riches” stories of extremely bright, highly motivated and hard-working poor students who are able to reap the benefits of a U.S. higher education, the reality is that most “well-qualified” students are well-qualified because they have had the advantages of tutoring, extra classes, etc., all of which cost money. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. Many of those from “underserved sectors” need the type of remedial training that programs such as the Ford Foundation International Fellowship Program and similar programs offer. Well-known U.S. government scholarship programs such as Fulbright and Vietnam Education Foundation (VEF) do not target “underserved sectors.” Compared to its friendly competitors, Australia and the UK, the U.S. has relatively few scholarships available for Vietnamese and other international students. Last year, for example, there were 39 VEF Fellows and 28 student Fulbrighters.
D. Since EducationUSA centers benefit from U.S. taxpayer funds, they should avoid activities that may favor, or create perceptions of favoring, one U.S. institution over another. We can offer specific services either free or for a reasonable fee, but these services must lead to access to the full range of accredited institutions. Partnering with commercial agents would limit us to representing only those institutions with which the agents have a commercial arrangement.
The “specific services” that EducationUSA centers are permitted to offer “for a reasonable fee” could be misconstrued as an endorsement of those institutions benefiting from those specific services. This includes “affiliate programs” that some EducationUSA centers offer to U.S. schools in exchange for a fee. (The Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange Friends of MACEE affiliate program comes to mind.) While I don’t see a need for EducationUSA centers to partner with commercial agents, I do believe that they could play a positive role – as their Australian and British counterparts have – in helping to professionalize this nascent industry in Vietnam and other countries.
E. By adhering strictly to the ethical standards of providing information that is unbiased, objective, and comprehensive, EducationUSA centers equip foreign students to find the U.S. institutions that are right for them while enabling the full range of U.S. institutions to enroll qualified foreign students. Our goal is to invest in long-term relationships with students and institutional partners.
The service that EducationUSA centers provide is valuable but very basic; the amount of time advisers are able to spend with any one student or parent is necessarily limited. (In Vietnam there are a total of three advisers – one in the Embassy in Hanoi and two in the Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City.) The reality, anathema to those who take a black/white view of a rather complex and strategically important issue, is that the overwhelming majority of students and parents in Vietnam and elsewhere turn – not to EducationUSA advising centers – but to education consultancies, or agents, for information and assistance.
Disclosure: I served as country director of the Institute of International Education in Vietnam from 2005-09. During that time, IIE-VN administered EducationUSA advising centers on behalf of ECA, US State Department. MAA
Subject: Still Lucid at 97: General Vo Nguyen Giap Talks Education
29/08/2011Clarification: While the cable notes that “Giap is the hero of Vietnam’s 1954 victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu,” it’s worth pointing out – for the sake of historical accuracy – that he was also instrumental in the defeat of the US in what the Vietnamese call the “American War.” I guess the target audience had something to do with this sin of omission.
Võ Nguyên Giáp celebrated his 100th birthday on 25 August.
—————————————————————
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Hanoi
R 050947Z MAY 08 ZDK
FM AMEMBASSY HANOI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7743
INFO RUEHHM/AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH 4667
RUEHZS/ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM COLLECTIVEUNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HANOI 000516
SENSITIVE
TAGS: PHUM ECON PGOV KCOR KPAO SOCI PREL VM
Summary
¶1. (SBU) On April 25, the Ambassador and General Vo Nguyen Giap discussed efforts to increase educational exchanges between the United States and Vietnam. After imploring the Ambassador to work to bring the overall relationship to an even higher level, Giap echoed the Ambassador’s desire to see more Vietnamese study in the United States. Giap also pleaded for the Ambassador’s help in getting a U.S. university to open a branch in Vietnam. While the General repeated himself a few times during the 40 minute conversation, he left no doubt he is a fan of U.S. educational institutions. Giap is the hero of Vietnam’s 1954 victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu and an icon in Vietnam who has remained somewhat politically active despite his 97 years of age. End Summary.
Context
¶2. (SBU) On April 25, the Ambassador met Vietnamese national hero and Ho Chi Minh’s chief military strategist, General Vo Nguyen Giap, at the General’s Hanoi home. Due to his age and frail health, Giap receives visitors only infrequently. In seeking this meeting with the General, our note underscored the Ambassador’s desire to discuss bilateral educational exchanges. Giap has been outspoken about the need for reform of Vietnam’s educational system, most recently last year issuing a public letter calling for systemic reform (Reftel).
¶3. (SBU) When the Ambassador and Poloffs arrived, Giap, his wife and son, and a few Party officials were waiting in a living room of the General’s home. Giap, who did not get up from his seat, was dressed in military uniform. No press representatives were present. On the table in front of where the Ambassador and the General sat was a tape player that recorded the conversation — perhaps indicating Party officials still feel compelled, despite Giap’s advanced age, to keep tabs on what the General tells his foreign interlocutors. (Note: After sidelining Giap, then removing him from the Politburo in 1982, reportedly for his opposition to the invasion of Cambodia, Party rivals continued to monitor the General’s activities and conversations. End Note.)
We Are Now Friends
¶4. (SBU) The General began by noting that the United States and Vietnam are enjoying peaceful relations, with Vietnam now hosting a fourth post-war American ambassador. Giap relayed that he met with most of the Ambassador’s predecessors, who “demonstrated goodwill” towards Vietnam. Giap implored the Ambassador to bring the overall relationship to an even higher level. He said the GVN has achieved a lot of late and is “trying hard” in all areas. The Ambassador responded that he shares the General’s desire for better relations and pointed out that he is committed to doubling the number of Vietnamese students who study in the United States.
Zeroing In On Education
¶5. (SBU) The GVN is focused on improving its educational and scientific capabilities so the country can join the ranks of the developed countries, Giap said. Hanoi has progressed in the education area, but much needs to be done, he added. The increase
in the number of Vietnamese exports heading to the United States is just an “initial development” in the relationship and economic ties are bound to grow, he offered. Giap said the most important thing — pointing his finger in the air for emphasis — is the “human element.” The Communist Party has made improving Vietnam’s educational system its number one priority, he stated.
¶6. (SBU) The United States and Vietnam could talk a lot, but “deeds are more important than words,” the General continued. He asked that the Ambassador pay special attention to education because what has been done so far to get Vietnamese students to study in America “has not been sufficient.” Although a large number of Vietnamese students are enrolled at U.S. educational institutions, this is just a start, he added. He averred that a U.S. university should establish itself in Vietnam. Perhaps it could be a joint U.S.-Vietnamese university, he said.
¶7. (SBU) The Ambassador responded that we have heard that Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung also wants a U.S. university to set up in Vietnam. “You must have talked to him about this,” the Ambassador said, which elicited laughter. The General replied that, from time to time, he does talk to the PM about education issues in Vietnam. Giap added that, on many occasions, he has made public his points on science and education.
Comment: Approaching 100 But Still Lucid
¶8. (SBU) Giap repeated himself a few times during the 40 minute meeting, but spoke with clarity about the importance he attaches to education. With a doctorate in economics and as a former high school teacher whose daughter and grandchildren have studied at American universities, the General made clear that he sees U.S. educational institutions as important to Vietnam’s future.
MICHALAK
Categories: Commentary, Documents
Tags: Michael Michalak, US-Vietnam educational exchange, US-Vietnam relations, Vo Nguyen Giap, wikileaks
Comments: 2 Comments