What universities don’t know about their agents could cost them

In my recent piece for The PIE, I argued that the UK’s reliance on international student fee income has never been greater but that it has also never been more fragile. The same is true of the way we recruit these students.

At the recent SAMS Global conference, an anonymous survey of the university representatives attending suggested that institutions are, on average, working with far larger agent networks than many might expect. More than seven in 10 (72%) reported working with over 100 agents, while 16% said their university had relationships with more than 300. And that’s before we add aggregators to the mix, where a single partnership can potentially mean exposure to thousands of sub-agents, most of whom the university may never know or directly interact with.

On the face of it, this scale looks like diversification. But in practice, the sector remains highly concentrated. A small number of large agencies dominate the market. Even if a university has 200 agents on its books, a handful typically account for the majority of enrolments.

And yet, how much do universities really know about these agencies? According to the survey, many institutions use sophisticated CRM systems such as Salesforce, Dynamics or Azorus to manage their own student pipelines. It would be naïve to think the major agents aren’t doing the same. But how many universities actively ask about their agents’ systems, data management, or student-facing processes? Very few. The assumption seems to be that once an agent is signed up, the university’s responsibility largely stops at training and commission payments.

This lack of curiosity extends to the most important element: communication with students. Universities often say they want their messages to reach students directly, but in reality agents are often the filter. Students hear the agent’s version of the institution – sometimes accurate, sometimes distorted, often shaped to maximise conversion. Reciprocity rarely goes both ways.

Universities don’t see what’s being said on their behalf. But why not? Are institutions simply failing to ask, or are agents deliberately keeping those communications hidden? Either way, the result is the same: universities are blind to how their own reputations are being packaged and sold.

A small number of large agencies dominate the market. Even if a university has 200 agents on its books, a handful typically account for the majority of enrolments

Several SAMS Global survey respondents acknowledged this tension. Some argued that communications should be a joint responsibility – “agents are our representatives, and we should know what they are saying” – while others admitted that universities lacked the resources to oversee this properly. A few leaned on the AQF as a sign of progress, but the reality is that monitoring remains sporadic, inconsistent, and often symbolic rather than substantive.

Meanwhile, costs continue to spiral. Universities are paying more not only because a growing share of students come through agents, but also because commission rates themselves are climbing. In competitive markets, institutions are offering higher rates, incentives, and bonuses, effectively bidding against each other for the same students. It has become a race to the top on commissions, without serious reflection on whether this is sustainable or even effective.

This is the crux of the issue. By outsourcing ever more of their student recruitment to agents without adequate oversight of systems or communications, universities are not just outsourcing the task of recruitment. They are outsourcing their compliance, their reputation, and ultimately their financial resilience. The current model of “more agents, higher commissions” may deliver short-term enrolments, but it risks undermining long-term sustainability.

So where does this leave us? I’d suggest three questions for universities to grapple with:

• Should institutions be doing more to understand the systems their agents use and how they interact with prospective students?
• How far should oversight of agent–student communication go, and what does genuine shared responsibility look like?
• And is the current model of rising commissions sustainable, or are universities pushing themselves into an ever more fragile cycle?

We can’t afford to ignore these questions. As reliance on agents grows, the gap between what universities think they know about their networks and what is actually happening on the ground could prove costly for students, for universities, and for the UK’s reputation as a study destination.

The post What universities don’t know about their agents could cost them appeared first on The PIE News.