Should you place a student in a college that you know is wrong for the student even when the student demands to be enrolled in the college??
This is the dilemma being presented to many education agents in Australia now. The education providers in question do not deliver a quality course or sometimes any course. They exist to provide a visa for a person to continue working and staying in Australia. Agents know that this is a massive waste of time and money for the student but the student is convinced this is where they want to go. ASQA has released its international education strategic review and identified a major risk of education providers that are not requiring the attendance of students. This represents an overall risk of reputational damage and pressure on providers doing the right thing to try and match low pricing and/or shave attendance requirements.
The education agents, for the most part, do no work with providers like these but there is increasing pressure to do so if the colleges remain in business and the students want to sign up.
The International Student Education Agents Association (ISEAA) is working with industry and government on education agent accountability and performance. On the other side, ISEAA would like to see the regulator take more action against providers that are not requiring attendance and to build quality back into all RTOs delivering to international students. With less 'supply' of bad providers, it is more difficult for any education agent to meet the 'demand' of students.
Should you send a student to a college that is claiming a pathway to possible migration outcomes when you know it may be difficult or even impossible??
Another part of the debate is education agents giving the wrong information to students and making claims of migration pathways from certain courses. The reality for international students now is that migration outcomes are progressively harder than ever before. New restrictions on temporary skilled visas and longer periods of fulltime work experience requirements post-graduation are limiting options for progressing to residency. This is more of an 'offshore' problem with education agents looking at a sale rather than the consequences for the student but we deal with the disappointed student here in Australia. The ESOS Act holds the provider responsible for the actions of the agent. If the provider gives the wrong information to the agent on possible migration pathways is it the responsibility of the agent to the student to check this information carefully? This holds for universities still selling accounting to prospective students as a migration pathway and to colleges such as the AIBT case selling Diploma of Nursing courses without full accreditation. The need to rebuild trust in the Australian education brand should be the goal for everyone involved in international education.
ISEAA is holding a forum on these issues in Sydney August 8 and in Brisbane August 20, 2019, to start the conversation on recruiting ethically. In Melbourne on September 17, The Symposium on Leading Education Recruitment (SYMPLED2019) is focussing on 'trust and transparency'.