University Admission Commissions: Are Us Students Paid?

The use of commission-based recruiters has grown significantly among universities in the USA. While federal law prohibits the payment of commissions for the recruitment of domestic students, there is no such restriction for international students. Universities typically pay recruiting agencies a percentage of the first-year tuition per enrolled student, which can amount to thousands of dollars. However, there have been concerns about the lack of well-defined qualifications and evaluation criteria for recruitment agents, as well as potential conflicts of interest between agents, students, and universities.

Commission-based recruiters are growing in popularity

Commission-based recruiters are becoming increasingly popular in the United States, with a growing number of colleges and universities engaging their services. This shift is likely influenced by the competitive job market, where institutions seek new ways to attract the best talent. While commission-based recruiting offers certain advantages, there are also some potential drawbacks.

Advantages of Commission-Based Recruiters:

• Cost-efficiency: One of the most significant benefits is cost savings for institutions, as they only pay when a recruiter successfully enrols a student. This payment structure eliminates the burden of fixed salaries for an in-house team.
• Results-driven: Commission-based recruiters are highly motivated to deliver results quickly. Their income depends on their ability to source and place suitable candidates promptly, ensuring that institutions secure the best talent.
• Extensive networks: These recruiters often possess vast industry connections, enabling them to tap into a wide pool of prospective students. This can significantly reduce the time needed to fill vacancies.
• Specialized expertise: They often specialize in specific industries or job roles, making them experts in their field. This specialized knowledge helps institutions find candidates who align with their unique needs.

Potential Drawbacks:

• High turnover: The focus on quick placements to earn commissions can lead to a lack of emphasis on long-term candidate suitability and cultural fit within the institution.
• Conflict of interest: In some cases, commission-based recruiters might prioritize their financial gain over the institution's best interests, potentially resulting in rushed placements and mismatches.
• Limited company knowledge: They may not always grasp the institution's culture, values, or long-term goals, leading to placements that are not in line with the organization's mission and vision.

Best Practices for Working with Commission-Based Recruiters:

• Clear communication: It is essential to establish clear expectations and ensure that recruiters understand the institution's culture, long-term objectives, and specific requirements.
• Vetting and reputation: Institutions should vet recruitment partners thoroughly and prioritize those with legitimate reputations in their communities. It is crucial to be wary of recruiters who lack transparency about their services, fees, and industry background.
• SEVP-certification: Institutions should ensure that recruiters partner with SEVP-certified schools. F and M students are only permitted to attend SEVP-certified institutions.
• Direct contact with DSO: Direct communication with the Designated School Official (DSO) at the SEVP-certified school is vital. The DSO plays a crucial role in authorizing employment for students and issuing the necessary documentation for nonimmigrant status.

Universities pay recruiting agencies, not individual counsellors

The use of commission-based recruiters has grown significantly in recent years, with many universities opting to pay recruiting agencies instead of individual counsellors. This shift has been particularly notable in the United States, where international student recruitment is a booming industry.

So, why are universities turning to recruiting agencies? One of the primary reasons is the success-fee structure. Universities only pay the agency a fee, typically around 15% of the first year's tuition, when a student is successfully enrolled. This eliminates any financial risk for the university, as they only pay if a student enrols. Additionally, some institutions prefer to pay a marketing fee to the agency rather than a per-student commission, avoiding discussions about tuition levels if scholarships are offered.

The role of these recruiting agencies is to promote specific universities to prospective students, often travelling overseas to encourage applications and enrolments. While this may raise concerns about unethical sales tactics, reliable and ethical agents are in high demand. Agencies that can effectively support students with their applications and visa interviews and provide pre-arrival arrangements are particularly valuable to both students and universities.

It's worth noting that the commission-based agreement is typically signed with the recruiting agency, not individual counsellors. Counsellors are usually salaried employees who are not incentivized to recommend specific universities. This separation of fee and recommendation ensures that counsellors can focus on finding the most suitable university for each student. Additionally, university commission payments may only be a small part of the compensation for the counselling agency, with parents also paying advisory fees.

While there are benefits to using recruiting agencies, it is important for universities to carefully manage these relationships to avoid potential issues. Universities should also be aware that students from certain regions may prefer independent agents who are paid by the students and their parents but do not receive commissions from the university. Overall, the use of commission-based recruiters is a complex and evolving landscape in the competitive world of higher education.

Commission is typically a percentage of first-year tuition

In the United States, some universities pay commission to student recruiters for enrolling international students. This payment is typically a percentage of the first year's tuition fee, excluding housing costs. The prevalent market rate is around 15% of the first year's tuition fee. This payment structure ensures that the university does not incur out-of-pocket expenses without a successful enrollment, making it an attractive option for admissions professionals.

The use of commission-based recruiters has grown significantly in the US, with the percentage of institutions providing funding for recruiting agents more than doubling between 2011 and 2016. This growth is attributed to the benefits it offers to both universities and students. For universities, it is a cost-effective way to attract international students without assuming financial risk. For students, it simplifies the complex US application process and provides support with visa applications.

However, the commission-based system has its drawbacks. Firstly, it can create a "grey area" where inappropriate recruiting activities may occur. For example, admissions officers may be perceived as pushing students to apply and enroll in specific institutions without considering the student's best interests. Secondly, students may encounter issues with commission-based agents, such as false promises of guaranteed admission, which can affect their educational journey.

It is worth noting that while some students using commission-based agents pay fees, others do not. According to a report, 20% of students using commission-based agents paid $1,000 or more, while others worked with independent agents who were paid by the students and their parents but did not receive commissions from the colleges.

The average cost of tuition and fees in the US varies depending on the type of institution and the student's residency status. For the 2024-2025 academic year, the average cost of tuition and fees at private colleges was $43,505, $24,513 for out-of-state students at public universities, and $11,011 for in-state residents at public schools. These costs have been steadily increasing over the years, with tuition hikes at both public and private institutions.

In conclusion, while commission-based recruitment has its advantages, it is essential to consider the potential ethical concerns and ensure that the interests of students are always prioritized. Universities should carefully manage their relationships with recruiting agents to avoid inappropriate activities and ensure a fair and transparent admissions process.

There is no federal law prohibiting commission for international students

While there is no federal law prohibiting commissions for international students, the practice of paying commissions to recruit international students is prevalent in the United States. This strategy is employed by secondary schools, colleges, and universities to meet growing enrollment targets, often with limited budgets. The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) has been monitoring the use of commission-based agents by US higher education institutions since 2011, and its Code of Ethics Series provides guidance on the responsible use of commissioned agents in international student recruitment.

NACAC's concern with this strategy stems from the potential risks to both students and institutions. For instance, 16% of students using institution-sponsored agents complained about false promises of guaranteed admission, while others may be unaware of their rights and responsibilities when hiring an agent or recruiter. It is important to note that a recruiter should not offer to write or significantly alter an admissions essay, handle a Form I-20, or promise guaranteed acceptance at a school. The admission decision is based solely on the student's qualifications as submitted with their application.

The compensation for commission-based recruiters typically ranges around 15% of the first year's tuition (excluding housing costs) paid by the international student. The payment is usually tied to the cash received by the university, although some institutions prefer a marketing fee to the recruiting agency instead of a per-student commission. The more an institution pays for recruiting services, the more attention agents will focus on that particular institution, creating a grey area that suggests inappropriate recruiting activity.

In addition to the potential risks mentioned above, students should also be cautious when working with independent agents. While these agents are paid by students and their parents, they do not receive commissions from colleges, and students may end up paying higher fees without guaranteed results. Therefore, it is essential for students to thoroughly research the reputation and background of any recruiter or agent they consider working with and to be aware of the potential risks and benefits involved in using their services.

Agents may not always act in the best interest of students

In the US, around 20% of students using commission-based agents pay $1000 or more for their services. These agents are paid by students and their parents, and they do not receive a commission from a college or university. This is in contrast to institution-sponsored agents, who are paid by the university and may receive a success fee for enrolling a student. This fee is typically around 15% of the first year's tuition.

The issue of commission-based agents in the admissions process creates a grey area, where agents may not always act in the best interest of students. For instance, 16% of students using institution-sponsored agents complained of "false promises about guaranteed admission at their top-choice schools". This figure was lower, at 11%, for students working with independent agents. This discrepancy suggests that commission-based incentives may influence the promises made by admissions staff, who are perceived by international students and parents as being paid to push students to apply and enrol.

Additionally, there is the issue of familiarity with the US application process. For students from outside the US, the application process may be unfamiliar, and nearly half (48%) of East Asian respondents in one study stated that their main reason for working with an agent was to reduce the time and effort needed to prepare applications. In these cases, it is human nature for agents to try and find the easiest and fastest fit for the student, which may not always be the best option for the student's long-term interests.

While commission-based recruitment can provide a valuable service to students and universities, it is important to consider the potential conflicts of interest that may arise. Universities and admissions staff should be mindful of the potential for inappropriate recruiting activity and ensure that the best interests of students are always prioritised.

Frequently asked questions