The Hard Facts about Intensive English Student Recruitment

If things were not challenging enough for Intensive English Programs or IEPs,  the concentration of students coming from just a few destinations makes obtaining program balance and diversity an ongoing battle.   The latest Open Doors IEP Profile indicates that four countries account for 60% of all students in IEP programs.

Saudia Arabia- 27%- in many cases the overall percentage may be has high as 50% of total program numbers

China-15%- in many cases the percentage may be as high of 50% of total program numbers

Korea- 10 %

Japan-8%

While certainly important future host markets for international students- Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam still account for relatively small percentages of IEP students  due to visa challenges, financial limitations and overall host market size.   Those IEP schools that are not embracing the runaway trend of funded scholars from the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, will have no choice but to pursue these students to maintain or grow IEP numbers in the near future.  

 

 

The slow pace of education reform in Vietnam gives rise for unique promotion opportunities for U.S. education providers

California ETEC has been a leading promoter of Vietnam as a key target market for U.S. education and training providers due to the size of the market and acute capacity development needs in-country.  In fact,  CA ETEC formalized cooperation with the U.S. government in 2011 to open a stand-alone center (VETEC™) to exclusively brand and promote U.S. education and support active student recruitment in Vietnam.    The timing of  VETEC™ -opening in Fall 2012 seems ideal.

Original article is linked below-

School stampede highlights Vietnam education woes

Posted: Jun 26, 2012 2:41 AM PDTUpdated: Jun 26, 2012 2:41 AM PDT

By MIKE IVES
Associated PressHANOI, Vietnam (AP) – Dao Quoc Huy and his wife joined other anxious parents camped outside Thuc Nghiem primary school at 3 a.m. When the sun came up, the crowd crushed against the metal entrance gate until it fell – hurdling bushes and losing flip-flops in a frenzied sprint to nab coveted application forms.The school is one of Vietnam’s only public institutions emphasizing American-style learning instead of rote memorization. Roughly 600 kindergartners from around the capital were vying for the 200-odd spots available this fall.”It’s like playing the lottery,” said Huy, 35, who hoped his daughter would be among the chosen. “We need luck.”

The recent stampede, which resulted in a few minor bruises but no arrests, underscores a problem experts say weighs heavily on Vietnam’s graying communist leadership: Nearly four decades after the Vietnam War, the country’s education system remains so corrupt and backward it’s impeding economic growth. And the rising middle class is now desperate for alternatives.

In this Confucian nation where education is a national obsession, schools at all levels are hampered by cheating, bribery and a lack of world-renowned programs and researchers. The result is a surging number of Vietnamese students are attending international-style private schools and later overseas colleges and universities.

Although average income here is just $1,400, more than 30,000 Vietnamese were studying at foreign higher learning institutions last year. Vietnam ranks fifth highest worldwide for its student enrollments in Australia, and eighth for enrollments in the U.S., placing it above Mexico, Brazil and France.

The number of Vietnamese studying in the U.S. has increased sevenfold from about 2,000 over the past decade. Most of the nearly 15,000 who were studying in the U.S. last year were not on scholarships to well-known schools, but instead attending community colleges paid by their families, according to the New York-based Institute of International Education.

Unlike universities in neighboring China where communist leaders enacted sweeping reforms in the 1980s, Vietnam’s schools are not keeping pace with an increasingly globalized world, experts say. The government has instead preserved a system promoting inefficient central management and a lack of critical thinking. Up to 10 percent of coursework remains devoted to the teachings of Marx, Lenin and late Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh.

Vietnam’s educational model is “one size fits all,” and the country’s leaders “should have done more to make education one of its assets,” said Mai Thanh, a World Bank senior education specialist in Hanoi. “I see it as a missed opportunity.”

 

for the rest the article please click below:

http://www.newswest9.com/story/18879315/school-stampede-highlights-vietnam-education-woes?clienttype=printable

 

 

Re: Still no consensus on the use of study agents to recruit international students.

This article was originally published in the Chronicle of Higher Education on June 1st, 2012.

The topic of working with agents continues to engender controversy and likely will never be resolved.   CA ETEC has working relationships with credible organizations such as ICEF who match vetted agents with schools who wish to recruit through study abroad agencies.  It is also our belief that organizations such as AIRC are serving a benefit to schools by providing some baseline standards of ethical behavior for study agents.

California ETEC also believes that schools should consider non-agent recruitment options.    We have developed a number of customized recruitment options for U.S. institutions in Asia, particularly in China and S.E. Asia, and will open VETEC in Ho Chi Min City to provide U.S. schools alternative promotion and recruitment options .   * A new model of recruitment outside of the traditional methods of using study agents or participating in high cost, low yield study fairs

 

June 1, 2012

State Dept. Draws Criticism Over Policy on Paid Recruiters of Foreign Students

By Karin Fischer

Houston

The U.S. Department of State has overstepped its authority in issuing a policy against the use of paid recruiters for overseas students.

That was the charge made during a panel discussion on Friday, the final day of the annual meeting of Nafsa: Association of International Educators.

Mitch Leventhal is a founder of the American International Recruitment Council, or Airc, a group that develops standards of ethical practices and a system for certifying overseas recruiters. Federal law says that government agencies should defer to industry-based standards, unless those standards are illegal or otherwise impractical, Mr. Leventhal said at a session on the pros and cons of working with agents.

So when the State Department issued a 2009 policy directive prohibiting its overseas EducationUSA student-advising centers from forming partnerships or working with recruitment agents paid on a per-student basis, Mr. Leventhal argued, the department was wrongly superseding the authority of Airc, which is registered with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission as a standards-development organization.

“We’re not a professional organization lobbying on behalf of a group. We’re not advocating on behalf of agents. We’re a standards-setting and regulatory body,” Mr. Leventhal said of Airc. He was the group’s first president and remains on its Board of Directors.

By setting a policy on agents for its overseas advisers, the State Department is establishing a “de facto standard” and has “directly undermined” Airc’s effort, said Mr. Leventhal, who is vice chancellor for global affairs at the State University of New York. Agents hired by his and other institutions are barred from popular overseas EducationUSA fairs.

According to the law, the State Department has to submit a report to the White House Office of Management and Budget explaining why its policy should be followed in place of voluntary industry-set standards, Mr. Leventhal said. He asked whether the State Department had applied for and received a waiver from the White House office.

Reached for a response, Meghann Curtis, deputy assistant secretary for academic programs at the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, said that the department was aware that there is “a lack of consensus” on the use of agents. “Our directive to the State Department-funded EducationUSA centers applies to advisers within our network,” she said in a written statement. “To meet the State Department’s public-diplomacy mission, EducationUSA provides comprehensive information to international students about the entire range of accredited U.S. colleges, universities, and programs in our effort to help students find the best possible match with their abilities, needs, and interests. Working with commission-based recruiters is inconsistent with this public-diplomacy mission.”

A Competitive Disadvantage

While Airc’s standards were unanimously approved by its members, there is hardly consensus on the use of paid recruiters, an issue that remains one of the most contentious in international education and admissions circles.

Mr. Leventhal and others who favor the use of agents argue that, by paying and regulating foreign recruiters, American institutions have greater control of the process. (Paying agents to recruit American students is not permitted by federal financial-aid law.)

Agents on the ground can better serve students and their families because they know the culture and are part of the community, supporters of paying agents say. And, they argue, American colleges are put at a competitive disadvantage if they don’t hire recruitment agents because they are used so widely by countries like Britain and Australia.

For their part, the State Department and other opponents of the practice say it puts a profit motive ahead of students’ interests. It’s wrong to restrict student options to colleges that offer monetary incentives, the critics say, and agents chasing commissions could press students to enroll in institutions merely to make a quota. That could harm the reputation of American education abroad, they fear.

A commission organized by the National Association for College Admission Counseling is now examining the issue and will make recommendations on international-student recruitment. The association had considered a proposal to immediately bar its member colleges from using commission-based agents but opted instead to convene a panel.

David Hawkins, the group’s director of public policy and research and a panelist at Friday’s discussion, said the NACAC committee, which held its first meeting in March, is continuing its deliberations and will meet again formally in October.

The admissions group, he said, had entered into the debate over payments for agents because more and more of its members are recruiting international students.

“We were asked to get involved by our members,” Mr. Hawkins said. “Many of our members are being not asked but told by their college presidents to go out and get foreign students.”

He added: “This is not theoretical. It is not esoteric. This is a practical debate.”

 

CA ETEC formalizes alliance with ICEF to help U.S. institutions meet vetted overseas study agents

 

2011 ICEF North American Workshop Miami, Florida

As part of its goal to promote the US as a study destination, CA ETEC is committed to the proliferation of resources and opportunities that give US education providers a competitive advantage in the international education market. As part of this mandate, CA ETEC maintains an alliance with ICEF; the world’s leading organizer of educator-agent networking events, including the ICEF North America Workshop, an event connecting US educators with fully vetted, international educational agents.

Since its first occurrence, the ICEF North America Workshop has expanded vigorously every year. In 2011, this workshop grew by an impressive 17%, stimulated by a 29% increase in the number of attending higher education institutions, who now constitute the largest educational sector represented at the workshop (38% – the other participants being evenly divided between secondary and language schools). This numbers demonstrate an unmistakable growing tendency among educators to embrace educational agents as a reliable source of high quality international students.

In total, the ICEF Miami 2011 Workshop hosted 661 participants, including 217 North American educational institutions (USA 151, Canada 55, International 11), 38 exhibitors and 304 student recruitment agents from 57 countries around the world.

These agents must pass a rigorous screening procedure in order to attend; among other things, they must submit detailed references from North American partners, and provide information on the number of students they have sent to North America in the last year.

The top Agent countries represented were: China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Turkey, Germany, UK, Vietnam, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Nigeria.

Access to high quality student recruitment agents is not the only reason why a large and increasing number of educators choose to attend ICEF events; participants at these workshops also benefit from market intelligence seminars and informal networking occasions, which provide market intelligence and insider tips for the critical edge in international student recruitment.

As part of the alliance with ICEF, CA ETEC attends the ICEF North America workshop as an exhibitor, which allows us to draw attention to our members and promote California as a study destination to hundreds of highly professional educational agents.

In addition, CA ETEC’s arrangement with ICEF allows us to provide participating institutions from California with advantageous pricing discounts.

The 2012 ICEF North America Workshop – Miami, will take place at Loews Miami Beach Hotel from December 02 – 04.

For more information on ICEF events go to www.icef.com, for special pricing available to CA ETEC members, contact Diana Forman at dforman@icef.com

A Contrarian View on Japan

In international student outreach circles today, a preponderance of attention is devoted to China, India, Vietnam and Korea – and for good reason. Seasoned practitioners and newcomers to the field alike know that large and growing numbers of students from these countries are currently studying in the U.S. What’s more, shrinking budgets are forcing international recruitment professionals to adopt low cost, high impact strategies. Focusing on the aforementioned countries seems like a logical step.But what about Japan? While recruitment experimentation in unproven areas may be considered a comparably low Return On Investment proposition, Japan is anything but unproven. To be sure, we have witnessed a significant decline in Japanese student enrollments in the U.S. over the past 5-10 years:

Academic Year    Japanese students in the U.S.
2001-02         46,810
2002-03         45,960
2003-04         40,835
2004-05         42,215
2005-06         38,712
2006-07         35,282
2007-08         33,974
2008-09         29,264
2009-10         24,842
2010-11         21,290

Data from Open Doors: http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/Leading-Places-of-Origin

However, in absolute terms Japan today is #7 on the Open Doors list of leading sending countries. And, it is #4 among both intensive English language programs and community colleges, respectively.

Savvy investors routinely boast of how their success derived from buying when others were selling (and refraining from doing the opposite.) Forgive the rough-edged metaphor, but could investing in Japan be effective, counterintuitive though it may feel?

Like any relationship worth having, partnerships with Japanese schools, agencies, and others – from Hokkaido to Kyushu – reveal their true value slowly, and over time. At Ohlone College we have taken the long view in Japan, and we’ve seen results. While modest in absolute terms, we are pleased with our Japanese student enrollment growth: about 2 dozen more Japanese students today than 5 years prior. What’s more, we see credible signs that this growth will continue.

A little more than a year ago a Tokyo-based colleague asked me if schools in the U.S. were giving up on Japan. Looking back on that now, the question pains me a bit, for 2 reasons: 1) I felt the answer in some cases might be yes; and 2) I don’t think it has to be.

Post authored by California ETEC Board Member- Eddie West,  Dean of Counseling and International Programs,  Ohlone College, Fremont, CA.

 

A Word to the Wise- How to Idenfity Accredited Schools in the United States

2011 will be well remembered for the surprising number of  schools with SEVIS status exposed for illegally issuing F-1 Visas to students that either did not attend the school or were  merely  enrolled to a shell campus – a location that neither had a campus nor any meaningful delivery of academic programming.   Who is to blame for the proliferation of such “sham” universities?    It seems that a confluence of circumstances including lack of information, greed and outsized demand for study visas in  China, India and Vietnam have been the main drivers for this emerging problem.

Tri-Valley University in Pleasanton, California and North Virigina University located in Annandale, Virigina were two of the more egregious cases that surfaced last year.   In the case of Tri-Valley,  nearly 1500 students from India were registered to school being run out of a modest office building with a made up list of faculty and no students actually attending classes.   Northern Virginia University  a non-accredited, for profit- university was authorized by SEVIS to enroll 50 students, but  US Embassy and State Department officials found more than 2400 students, 90 percent from a single region in India, registered to the school.

As a record number of would-be international students consider study in the U.S., it is important that these students are steered toward credible programs that are accredited by the appropriate governing authorities.

What  a prospective international student or international student advisor should know?

  • There are six regional accreditors of U.S. Higher Education-   Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools;  New England Association of Schools and Colleges; North Central Association of Collegs and Schools;  Northwest Accreditation Commission;  Western Association of Schools and Colleges; Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.  www.chea.org
  • Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools(ACICS) governs independent colleges and schools of higher learning.  www.acics.org
  • A list of unaccredited institutions of higher education can be found doing a simple Wikipedia search
  • Accreditation of English Language Training Programs Act was signed in to law on December 10, 20120.   This new law requires all English Language Training Schools seeking to enroll F-1 Non immigrant students to receive accreditation by a regional or national accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Education.    www.accet.orgwww.cea-accredit.org

How to avoid being scammed by a fraudulent school? 

  • Schedule an appointment with your in-country EducationUSA Office to identify accredited schools in the United States.   EducationUSA staff will be able to provide no-cost, unbiased student advising services.
  • Request proof of accreditation from the language school or academic institution you are planning to seek admission
  • If you are working with a study agent,  ask that the agency to provide information about the accreditation council which approved the school in question.
  • Verify with your local government that the academic credits you will receive from the U.S. institution will be recognized in-country.
  • Finally,  please contact info@californiaetec.com if you have any questions about accreditation or would like a referral to a local resource who can assist you answering questions about U.S. institutions.