It’s reminiscent of those trick candles that delight children and adults alike. (OK, some adults.) You blow them out and they continue to relight themselves – like magic! While the US was late to the agent debate, actions that have been taken to date, while most would agree represent progress, have clearly not assuaged everyone’s concerns about the academic well-being of students who are, or should be, after all, front and center for those of us who are involved in educational advising.
With the recent Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) draft policy (PDF), which would prohibit its accredited institutions from using incentive-based compensation in international student recruitment, it appears that “it ain’t over till it’s over” regarding this contentious issue.
MSCHE, which accredits 525 institutions in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C., has essentially chosen to extend the Title IV restrictions on incentive-based compensation that apply to domestic student recruitment to international students.
Aside from being a shot across the bow of supporters of agency-based recruitment, what are the practical implications of this policy move? Will it make a difference? Is this rule binding? Probably not, but MSCHE-accredited institutions would be well-advised to follow it lest an infraction become a sticking point in their (re)accreditation. Will the other regional accrediting agencies follow in MSCHE’s regulatory footsteps? Only time will tell. (Regional accreditation is the gold standard of institutional accreditation in the US.)
Once again, this raises a fundamental question that advocates of commission-based recruitment tend to ignore, or believe can be addressed with band-aid solutions that often amount to nothing more than window dressing. Is it even possible to regulate this often shady global industry? Stay tuned!