Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

ISSN: 1369-183X (Print) 1469-9451 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20

Adapting to change in the higher education

system: international student mobility as a
migration industry

Suzanne E. Beech

To cite this article: Suzanne E. Beech (2018) Adapting to change in the higher education system:
international student mobility as a migration industry, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44:4,
610-625, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315515

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315515

Published online: 14 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4465

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 65 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjms20
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES, 2018
VOL. 44, NO. 4, 610–625
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315515

Adapting to change in the higher education system:

international student mobility as a migration industry
Suzanne E. Beech
School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Of late there has been considerable interest in understanding International student
international student mobility, and this has tended to focus on mobility; international
the perspective of the students who take part in this mobility. education agents; student
recruitment; migration
However, international students are part of a considerable
reform
migration industry comprised of international student recruitment
teams, international education agents and other institutions
selling an education overseas (such as the British Council in a UK
context) and as yet there is little research which analyses these
relationships. This paper investigates a series of interviews with
international office staff to examine the methods they use to
recruit international students, and in particular the relationship
that they have with international education agents who work with
them on a commission basis. It focuses on recent changes to the
UK visa system which have led to a decline in the numbers of
Indian students choosing to study towards a UK higher education.
However, it also reveals that some universities have managed to
avoid this trend. This paper investigates why this is the case,
demonstrating that there is a need to think about the
intersections between migration industries, visa regulations and
international student mobility.

Introduction
Over the last 15 years, there has been a profound shift in our understanding of how and
why international students choose to study overseas. This research has tended to focus on
the perspectives of the students themselves and the structural factors that lead to the
pursuit of an overseas education with issues of demand outstripping supply often cited
as one of the key influences for higher education mobility (Gribble 2008; Simpson,
Sturges, and Weight 2010). Such work has also been attuned to other social, cultural
and economic factors which may encourage a student to study abroad. The work of
Brooks and Waters (2011), in particular, has identified how mobility often relates to a
desire for greater social and cultural capital, which students believe will be almost immedi-
ately transferable to economic capital when they enter into the global job market. This has
been reinforced by evidence that even when the higher education infrastructure improves
in sending countries (such as those in South-East Asia), the desire to study overseas is
maintained as an overseas qualification becomes a way of differentiating oneself from

CONTACT Suzanne E. Beech [email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 611

the local graduate market (Waters 2009; Findlay et al. 2012). There are other possible
reasons for this as well, work by Collins (2008) and Beech (2015) discusses how students
are influenced by their social networks in the decision to study overseas. These networks
then normalise the process of choosing an international education, so that study abroad
becomes an accepted stage in the life course.
Consequently, there is a steady stream of prospective international students who are
eager to study abroad as a result of these structural and socio-economic factors.
However, the work of those who recruit international students is a subject of very little
systematic study, and yet it is these individuals who are ultimately responsible for creating
and distributing information about their universities to prospective students. This infor-
mation is critical because higher education is now a key export industry for many indus-
trialised countries, in particular for the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
(Pandit 2009; Brown, Edwards, and Hartwell 2010; Naidoo 2010; Zheng 2014) and has
been since the neoliberalisation of their tertiary education systems in the 1980s and
1990s. It is therefore crucial that these dynamics are given far greater attention, as this neo-
liberalisation has enabled universities to actively seek out new sources of funding, includ-
ing focusing on the recruitment of ‘high value’, full-fee paying students.
It is their high value of these students that has led to the development of a global
migration industry in higher education has become established. This could be defined
as the actors, entrepreneurs or systems of governance involved in facilitating student
mobility and migration (Betts 2013; Hernández-León 2013; Cranston, Schapendonk,
and Spaan 2018). Within a higher education context, these ‘industries’ operate in two
ways. First, many UK higher education institutions (HEIs) can, in themselves, be con-
sidered migration entrepreneurs, they provide opportunities for mobility and often
invest considerable financial capital in outreach activities to access these students.
Second, as demand for overseas education has risen (both from the students seeking
opportunities for study and the universities wishing to recruit these students), a
network of international education agents has also become established. These agents are
employed by private companies which have links and contacts at universities worldwide,
and are paid a commission by the universities for every student recruited successfully to
one of their programmes. It is important to note that agents will not necessarily have either
studied abroad themselves, or even visited all, if any, of their university partners, nonethe-
less they can be useful and valuable middleman in international student recruitment as
they have the same cultural and local understandings as the students. This can make it
easier for them to gain the students’ trust, benefitting the university. Furthermore, as
higher education is also subject to governance and policy systems which provide or
limit opportunities for international study, agents can also help students to negotiate
these hurdles, or even encourage them to seek out alternative overseas education desti-
nations. Over time and as a result of the benefits that they can bring, agents have
become integral to international student recruitment, with both universities and students
viewing agents as gatekeepers to international students and higher education opportu-
nities, respectively. Thus, similar to the calculative practices discussed by Cranston
(2018), this relationship does more than describe the economy, but also produces it.
With this in mind, this paper considers how the end of the UK Post-Study Work Visa in
2012 (which allowed international students to remain for two years on completion of their
studies) has affected international student recruitment. This paper will analyse a series of
612 S. E. BEECH

interviews conducted with higher education recruitment officers working at a range of UK

universities. It investigates the methods used by universities to recruit students and the
measures taken to ensure that they remain competitive in a saturated market. This also
details their response to these changing visa policies which have impacted upon the
UK’s ‘desirability’ as a destination for overseas study. In so doing it shows not only
how government policy leads to the establishment of different migration industries (in
particular the agent/university relationship), but also how policy reform affects the
success of these industries and an analysis of the university response to maintain competi-
tiveness despite these changes.

Higher education and the ‘migration industry’

Higher education in a UK context has expanded rapidly since the 1960s with student
numbers quadrupling between then and the beginning of the twenty-first century
(Blanden and Machin 2004). In particular, focus has often been upon the Further and
Higher Education Act of 1992 which fundamentally changed the UK higher education
system by removing the binary divide between universities and polytechnics (Mayhew,
Deer, and Dua 2004). This was significant as institutions, which in the past had focused
on vocational training, were now able to apply for university status and were often appeal-
ing to students because of their long-standing reputations and the applied nature of the
degrees that they offered (HEFCE 2004). Consequently, by 2011, there were 140 university
and university colleges in the UK (a rise from 33 universities in 1960) with a 42% partici-
pation rate in higher education at an undergraduate level for the relevant age cohort
(Foskett 2011). The result of this is a ‘highly differentiated HE [system]’ (Tindal et al.
2015, 94), comprised of HEIs which have a variety of different histories and sociocultural
understandings of what the universities can offer in terms of their research and education,
and therefore also in terms of their reputations.
The neoliberal reforms which facilitated these changes also enabled universities to
adopt free-market principles and generate some of their own funding with the aim of
increasing efficiency through competition and streamlining (Deem 2001; Harvey 2005;
Olssen and Peters 2005). As a result of this, alongside developments in internationalisation
and globalisation which facilitate international travel, communication and relationships,
universities now operate on a global scale and aim to exploit international opportunities
for funding and growth. The investment into international student recruitment and the
development of an international student migration industry within the UK is testament
to this, as are the range of different strategies which universities use to exploit these
alternative markets; such as distance learning, transnational higher education opportu-
nities, collaboration with overseas partners (in both research and teaching), branch cam-
puses overseas, and opportunities for student and staff mobility (Leung and Waters 2013;
Gopinath 2015).
There are short-term financial benefits to these various strategies – universities are able
to reach prospective students in new markets and recruit high value, internationally
mobile students which may help to maintain healthy finances and support research and
development (Zheng 2014). Lange (2013) noted that in the UK students from non-EU
countries (who pay higher fees than both their domestic and EU counterparts1) contrib-
uted some £2.5 billion to higher education funding. Thus, in the short-term, it makes sense
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 613

to put considerable effort into recruiting these ‘international’ students. Furthermore, the
influence of social networks on student mobility could lead to opportunities for greater
student recruitment in the future, as links between the sending and receiving countries,
or even links to particular universities, become more established (Beech 2015).
With so much at stake, competition for these students is fierce, and in recent years (and
partly as a response to this competition), we have witnessed increased use of third parties
and international education agents to grow student enrolment numbers. Pioneered in
Australia (Choudaha and Chang 2012), the agent model of recruitment is now widespread.
They inform students on their higher education options, and may also offer a wide range
of services including help with visas and travel, English language testing, accommodation
and counselling (Collins 2012). This has led to the development of what is effectively a
Global Mobility Industry facilitating the movement of these highly skilled migrants (Cran-
ston 2016; 2018). Agents themselves are free to prospective students and are paid on a
commission basis by the universities which they recruit to. For universities they therefore
offer a ‘one stop shop’ for student recruitment in exchange for a fee, and this can often
reap considerable reward as agents also tend to understand better the specific cultural
context of where the international students are coming from – something which is
often not the case for university recruitment officers.
In addition to this, international students can also reap longer term recruitment
rewards should they choose to remain on graduation, with evidence suggesting that
even on a temporary basis this can have advantages for sectors of the economy which
rely on a university-educated workforce (Adnett 2010). Thus, immigration policies are
often designed to encourage students to stay and fill particular skills shortages, such as
those in the science and engineering sector, which may be less popular with home gradu-
ates (Gribble 2008; Madge, Raghuram, and Noxolo 2009; Lange 2013; Tang et al. 2014). It
was with these aims that the Post-Study Work Visa was established in the UK, granting
leave for international graduates to remain for two years without the need to establish a
sponsor beforehand. However, swelling anti-immigration sentiment and fears over the
abuse of the system led to changes to UK immigration policy and the Post-Study Work
Visa ended in April 2012. Now, should international students wish to remain in the
UK, they have to either qualify for a Tier 2 visa which requires a sponsor in advance
and that the applicant is in receipt of an offer of employment with a salary of £20,800
or more, or a Tier 1 visa for aspiring entrepreneurs. Neither of these options were (or
indeed are) as appealing as the Post-Study Work Visa. At the time Mavroudi and
Warren (2013) suggested that these changes were likely to act as a deterrent for potential
international students and impact upon their recruitment, at least on a temporary basis
until the workings of the replacement visa system became clearer. This hypothesis
seems to have been confirmed in a recent report by Universities UK (2014) which
showed a marked decline in the numbers of international students from outside of the
EU to the UK between 2010–2011 and 2012–2013 (the numbers of Indian student enrol-
ments had almost halved in this time period). This was particularly notable when com-
pared with the levels of growth experienced before 2010.
However, the report also drew attention to the fact that there are now a number of
different options available to international students, reflecting on evidence that the top
five study destinations had all experienced some decline in international student
numbers since 2000 due to growing opportunities in destinations such as China, Malaysia,
614 S. E. BEECH

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for both local and international stu-
dents (Collins and Ho 2014; Ma 2014; Universities UK 2014). Thus, while reforms have
occurred, the shape of the international student market is very different and established
markets, like the UK, need to work harder to maintain their market position (Universities
UK 2014). This makes policy and recruitment spaces (and practices) crucial to the future
of the international student body on campus. Despite this, whilst we have a well-rounded
understanding of what attracts them to study overseas, our knowledge and understanding
of the geographies of this recruitment process are limited. We understand why universities
want to recruit these students, and what enables them to do so, but we do not yet under-
stand the processes that they employ and why, or how they have responded to these
market changes.

Methodology
This paper draws on findings from a study of recruitment practices in UK HEIs. In order
to recruit from as many HEIs as possible, an email was sent out on a forum for pro-
fessionals working in international higher education in early 2014. The only requirements
were that participants had to be presently or very recently employed in international
higher education recruitment in the UK. A total of 20 members of staff responded to
the call for participants. However, primarily due to time constraints, only 10 decided to
take up the offer of a semi-structured interview. To maintain their anonymity, all
names used in this study have been changed for pseudonyms, and their universities
have not been named directly.
The participants came from universities throughout England and Scotland, and could
be considered representative of the diversity of the UK higher education system. This
research captures the essence of this variety by including interviewees from a range
of different HEIs. Two interviewees were from Russell Group institutions, a self-styled
collective of the 24 most research intensive universities in the UK, and which often
are ranked highly in both national and international ranking systems. Three were
from post-1992 universities which were founded under the terms of the Further and
Higher Education Act of 1992. One participant was from a Redbrick institution, a
term which loosely refers to universities formed in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. One was from a New University formed after the post-1992 wave, but
which was not a former polytechnic. The final three were from, what I have termed,
specialist higher education providers such as arts colleges, music conservatoires or
subject-specific HEIs. A number of participants had also worked at multiple universities
or in private sector student recruitment and at least five had over 10 years’ experience
working in international student recruitment or admissions more generally. They were
therefore well placed to offer their reflections on changing international student recruit-
ment policies.
The universities were also diverse in terms of the proportion of international and EU
(or overseas) students that they hosted. At one institution, over 50% of the registered stu-
dents were classed as overseas or international according to the HESA statistics for 2014–
2015, but at others there were significantly less. Two of the HEIs (a New University and a
Specialist HEI) included in the sample had very small international student communities
and in both cases less than 3% of their students were domiciled outside of the UK. On
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 615

average, 21.16% of the students registered at the HEIs in the study were overseas or inter-
national and again, this is broadly comparable to the UK average of just over 19% (HESA
2016). It is also important to note that within the analysis of the interviews with the inter-
national office staff they refer to international students as those from outside of the EU
unless they state explicitly to the contrary (Table 1).
All of the interviews were conducted via Skype or telephone between August 2014 and
June 2015 and lasted between 30 minutes and an hour. Using Skype and telephone as an
interview method offered greater flexibility and the proposed timings of the interviews
could vary if the availability of the participants changed (see Deakin and Wakefield
2014 for further discussion of the benefits of Skype interviews). There were some issues
with this method, however, with the internet connection failing on occasion which affected
the flow of the interview, at least temporarily. Questions have also been raised regarding
the ability to develop a rapport with interviewees when not meeting face-to-face, particu-
larly given that the non-verbal cues that interviewers use to make their participants feel
more relaxed are often lost (O’Connor et al. 2008) although this is less the case with
Skype where it is possible to use both audio and video to communicate. However, a
number of the participants mentioned that they either used Skype or telephone to talk
to prospective international students on a regular basis and as such seemed comfortable
with this arrangement.

International student recruitment: policy and practice

As noted, a number of interviewees had extensive experience working in the international
student recruitment sector. One of the participants, Luke, had been employed at his
current Specialist HEI since 2012 and had worked at a post-1992 institution prior to
that. He offered a vibrant picture of the ‘industrialisation’ of student migration and
reflected that the emergence of the international student sector was almost organic. He
discussed how, early in the 1990s, recruitment had been student driven and the university
had no well-defined strategy for targeting these students.
Luke: I became, whatever it was, Head of International around about ninety, well the late 90s
and then the international office built up from one person … Now, think about that in terms
of employment and development. A whole new industry developed from the early 90s
through to the 2000s.

Table 1. Participants and their HEI type.

Name HEI type % International and overseas studentsa % International studentsa
Simon Russell Group 28.98 22.48
Judith Post-1992b 20.62 11.71
Lois Red Brick 26.88 20.98
Rhoda Post-1992b 29.78 19.50
David New Universityc 2.57 1.56
Sarah Specialist HEI 13.99 10.72
Nathan Specialist HEI 6.90 4.45
Candace Post-1992b 12.85 10.17
Luke Specialist HEI 2.56 1.28
Joel Russell Group 66.51 48.54
a
Adapted from HESA (2016).
b
Former polytechnics.
c
New University, formed after 1992, but not a former polytechnic.
616 S. E. BEECH

The policies of Luke’s former HEI were in stark contrast to his current employer. He
stated that whereas in his prior appointment they perhaps had 30,000 students, the
specialist institution in which he was now employed had fewer than 2000. He commented
that in his current employment it was like ‘going back in time’. He was, initially, ‘the Inter-
national Office of one’ which offered an interesting case of déjà vu of his experience 15
years previously. In his new employment, he was dealing with issues and questions
which he had dealt with long ago at his previous HEI. His experience offers interesting
insights into the rapid development of the migration industry over a relatively short
period of time and in response to growing student demand. Not only that, but it also
demonstrates that internationalisation is now also a focus for smaller, specialist HEIs as
well.
In response to these rapid changes the majority of universities had adopted a triad of
recruitment methods. First, direct applicants who apply to the university with no, or
limited external help. Second, by developing partnerships with universities overseas
which may include exchange or other teaching and learning arrangements (such as a
‘two-plus-two’ programme where a student begins their degree in one location, but
finishes it overseas, graduating with a degree from the host HEI). The third principle
method was agent-led recruitment, whereby, as mentioned, the student comes to the uni-
versity through a third party who is paid a commission for every student they recruit to the
university (Matthews 2012). These would then be supplemented with a range of other
activities such as academic visits or attendance at international student recruitment
fairs which can be either based in the UK or within key markets globally. The two
latter of these methods (and possibly the first) include a relationship of some description
with ‘migration entrepreneurs’ (Hernández-León 2013) who facilitate the mobility of the
students for financial gain – in these cases either the agents or the universities themselves.
In addition to these, two of the universities interviewed also mentioned how they were
trying to encourage academics to use trips overseas (either for research or conferences) as
opportunities to also engage with prospective international students, ensuring that they
were making the most of their staff time abroad. Lois, who worked at a Redbrick insti-
tution in England, stated that this was a particularly good method for reaching out to
potential postgraduate students:
Lois: Often if we have academics that are travelling for conferences we will see if there are
partner universities that … they can go and visit, so we can really sustain strong relationships
with the universities that we already work with, even if it’s giving a lecture in the department
that the professor would be affiliated with … In the past we have seen a huge amount of
success having an academic meet with faculty and also give one of these lectures and in
return you see a lot of [postgraduate] interest.

This changing institutional policy could have interesting ramifications for the shape and
size of international recruitment teams for the future. If there is a demand for this more
specialised information, future trends may see a move away from large international teams
towards greater reliance on academic faculty to drive the recruitment process, perhaps
even at a departmental or subject group level.
Despite these potential changes, overwhelmingly universities cited direct and agent-led
as the two key recruitment methods with some having substantial agent teams into which
they invested considerable money and time. Simon, who worked at a Russell Group
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 617

institution and had over 15 years experience of international student recruitment, stated
that his university worked with between 240 and 250 education agents and every year they
conducted a performance review of those agents. The use of migration entrepreneurs was
therefore central to their recruitment strategy and they invested considerable efforts in
monitoring the performance of these third parties. He described how there was an expec-
tation that certain markets, such as India and China, agents would bring large numbers of
students to their university annually and this was primarily because these markets were
agent-led. Simon discussed how, among Indian and Chinese students, the agent model
is now so entrenched that it was almost accepted that they would make their higher edu-
cation choices with the help of a third party. If an agent failed to perform in these cases, the
university would then consider severing their relationship with them. By contrast, in other
countries there was a significantly smaller agent market. Judith and Candace, who were
both employed at Post-1992 universities stated that in Nigeria very few students would
come to a university through an agent. Judith explained this by saying that in Nigeria
there is ‘a real suspicion of the middle person’ and therefore it was more normal to
have very small numbers of students coming through an agent. As such universities
make decisions on whether or not to continue relationships with agents not only on the
basis of the number of incoming students but also their recruitment expectations with
regard to the prevalence and centrality of agents in those markets.
The introduction of a third party into student recruitment can cause difficulties because
it has the potential to dilute the universities’ messages and advertising. Therefore, to use
agents also leads to a need for greater safeguarding. Amongst the interviewees it was a
standard procedure to monitor agents or to visit them regularly. Rhoda, who also
worked at a post-1992 university, said that building a relationship with an agent or
agency is important, and they also encouraged agents to assist at recruitment fairs so
that they could monitor how they sold their university:
Rhoda: we try not to have such a big network that we don’t visit those agents or aren’t in
contact with those agents on a more or less regular basis … [If] we do a British Council exhi-
bition we would ask agents to come and help us on the stand … that’s a great training oppor-
tunity but also a good quality control, because then we can hear what they are saying to the
students.

One university did reflect on the risks inherent to the agent relationship. Simon stated that
they were ‘essentially able to use [their] name, [their] brand, and if they are not very closely
engaged with [the university] that could … put [the university’s] name at risk’. His univer-
sity had received some negative publicity in the past on their use of agents and their
recruitment methods. Consequently, they were now much more aware of how many
agents their team could support and only established contracts if they were certain that
they could observe the activities of those agents effectively.
Whilst agents were a key recruitment method for the majority of the universities that
were interviewed, three of the universities stated that they did not have any agencies
working for them at present. Two of these were small, specialist institutions. In her inter-
view, Sarah said that at present there was no need for them to use agents because the
markets in which they worked were relatively small and they were able to manage the
applications on their own. They did not tend to work in the large, agent-led markets of
India and China and, whilst they had experimented with agents some four years
618 S. E. BEECH

previously, the returns from these efforts had not been great enough to warrant continuing
the contracts. Similarly, the markets that Nathan was working with were also relatively
small, and there was a focus in their institution on recruiting a number of students
from Australia, the South-East Asia (especially Singapore), Canada and the USA.
However, in the USA context, the use of agents and third parties in recruitment is
illegal, primarily due to the ethics of incentivised recruitment, although it should be
noted that at present this does not extend to universities recruiting international students
into the USA (ICEF Monitor 2012). To counter their lack of agents, Nathan’s HEI instead
relied on attendance at some university fairs, partnerships with other institutions and
higher education counsellors who did not have the same commission-based relationship
with the university, and also focused on recruiting international students already in the
UK for secondary education study.
By contrast, the third university was a Russell Group institution that consistently per-
forms well in league tables. Whilst operating on a much larger scale than Sarah and
Nathan’s HEIs, the interest from students, and the reputation was enough to ensure a
steady stream of applicants. Joel went on to say that he was ‘surprised that larger univer-
sities with brilliant reputations use them’, he said:
I can very much understand from a university that may not be high profile … I don’t see why
a university that it is in the top ten would need to do that really.

This represents a stark contrast to Simon (mentioned earlier) who noted that agents were
central to their recruitment strategy, despite also being a member of the Russell Group.
This suggests that ‘excellence’ among students is perhaps focused more closely on the
top performers in league tables rather than on other indicators of esteem – like Russell
Group membership. In addition, Joel felt that the ease of communications now was
such that there was really no need to involve a third party in the recruitment process,
although was keen to point out that as he had only worked in one institution and he
did not know whether this was the same experience for every HEI. These three exceptions
aside, agents did appear to be an accepted method of recruiting students to UK univer-
sities. However, even those who choose not to employ agents directly, are still involved
directly in activities designed to facilitate international mobility whether that be staff
visits overseas, attending international recruitment fairs or prioritising contact with the
students themselves. Thus, all took part in the wider migration industries of higher
working to recruit students to their universities.
From this it is apparent that there are complex power relationships involved in main-
taining and recruiting agents. Universities, in some cases feel bound by the agent relation-
ship and the access this gives them to wider student markets. This is evidenced by the scale
of the agent networks at some institutions (upwards of 200 agent partners in some cases)
and the scaffolding that goes into monitoring agent partners’ performances and under-
standing of the universities. However, the power in this case tends to lie with the univer-
sities themselves who can sever relationships on the basis of performance (in terms of the
number of students recruited) or if they have a high number of rejections amongst the stu-
dents applying through them, which Rhoda suggested was indicative of a misunderstand-
ing of the ‘product’ on offer at the university.
The means by which universities and agents establish relationships with one another
was less clear. As mentioned, agents work for private companies and may have no prior
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 619

relationship with a university. However, the British Council does provide a list of agents
who have successfully passed their agent training programme and thus acts as one source
of potential connections although none of the interviewees mentioned this directly. Rhoda,
in her discussion of agent monitoring (of which tracking application success was a part),
went into greater detail of their selection process which involved letters of reference from
staff at other universities and relying on wider nationwide networks:
there is a general email distribution list to all international staff across universities so quite
often if there are issues cropping up with agents people send an email to their colleagues
and say, “have you had this particular problem?” and then you can also see whether it’s a
specific counsellor that hasn’t been trained properly or … whether it’s an agency, whether
it’s just with us, or whether it’s also spread across other institutions.

Her comment highlights that not only do these power structures operate on an insti-
tutional scale, but also on a wider national scale as well. Failure to perform or concerns
regarding agent ethics will be shared more widely, potentially affecting multiple relation-
ships which agents have with universities. In saying this, the powers of the agent should
not be undervalued either. As the following section reveals agents can have significant
sway in terms of where students choose to study, sending them elsewhere if market con-
ditions change.

The end of the post-study work visa: changing student demands

Migration entrepreneurs in the form of higher education agents are a major factor influ-
encing student recruitment, and, as noted above, they are widely used in UK HEIs (Huang,
Raimo, and Humfrey 2014). Furthermore, agents tend to have considerable power over
where students from certain countries, like China and India, are likely to study given
that they are paid on a commission basis and are therefore incentivised to send students
to particular locations. However, as middlemen, they also have to take account of students’
desires and wishes as it is only with their mobility that they will get remunerated. This is
most noticeable given the recent changes in higher education policy in the UK which have
influenced the numbers of incoming international students and the decisions that they
make regarding their study destinations. One of the most influential of these changes
has been the ending of the Post-Study Work Visa in 2012. As Mavroudi and Warren
(2013) suspected, this change from allowing graduates to stay for work without an
initial sponsor for two years, to one which requires either a sponsor for a graduate level
job has had a profound effect on both the courses that international students are interested
in taking, and the countries from which those students are coming from.
Three of the universities mentioned either changing or decreasing interest from stu-
dents, or a reformation of their target markets. Judith worked at a post-1992 institution.
She noted that they had experienced a 70% drop in students coming to her university from
India. She acknowledged that this was a steep decline, but noted that it was ‘actually in line
with a number of universities and a drop in interest from India to the UK as a study des-
tination’ (this is particularly significant when you take account of the human capital and
potential international students which the country provides (Gopinath 2015)). Univer-
sities UK (2014) stated that the sudden decline was in part due to the changing visa
policy in the UK, but that these changes had coincided with a period of change in the
620 S. E. BEECH

higher education marketplace more generally, and there are now much greater opportu-
nities for students to study overseas. David, who worked at a new university, also com-
mented on this. He had joined his university about three years prior to the interview,
and almost immediately decided to end their recruitment activities in India. This was in
part because he felt that as a relatively small institution it would be very difficult for
them to compete in such a large market, but that this had also been made worse by the
changing perceptions of the UK as a higher education destination from an Indian perspec-
tive. He commented that increasingly the ‘perception of coming to study and the welcome
that they get in the UK has changed’.
There was speculation regarding why the Indian market in particular had been so
affected by these reforms. David believed firmly that it was due to funding models that
different countries subscribed to. He stated that students from India tend to take out a
loan to study overseas for a masters, similar to students from the UK, and because of
this they are interested in ensuring that they get a job quickly after graduation in order
to pay off their debt. Whilst they aspire to graduate level employment, ‘any job’ would
be welcome. Additionally, the ability to stay and work in the UK also meant access to
employment with greater financial rewards than a job in their home country, thus they
would be able to pay off their debts much more quickly. He contrasted this with the
Chinese model of funding, a market which had been relatively unaffected by the changing
visa policies:
In China … you get a lot of … parents and relations who are paying for their nephews, nieces,
sons and daughters to go and study in the UK and the reason is that they want them to come
back and be the new finance manager for their small business.

For them the opportunity to remain in the UK would serve as further work experience
prior to taking up a post at home or as a stepping stone to a better job when they did
return home, rather than as a necessity as in the Indian case. Therefore, if Chinese students
are not as bound by the opportunity to work on completion of their studies it is unlikely
that the changed visa policy would be so critical.
These funding arrangements are also reflected in the fact that certain subject areas and
universities appear to have, to a certain extent, buffered the downwards trend in student
numbers. Judith and Candace, both of whom worked at Post-1992 universities which
prided themselves in their vocational focus, noted that some subject areas were experien-
cing growing international student numbers, including from Indian student communities.
Judith commented that whilst they did not notice a change in what students wanted
initially, about a year after the reforms had come into being, students were increasingly
more interested in the value of the degrees for which they were applying. They measured
this by investigating more thoroughly their career prospects on graduation.
Judith: they were interrogating us much more when they were visiting countries … there was
increasing [interest] to get the course right. Whereas before a masters in business, any type of
business, that was enough, or something like international business which takes in a lot of
different elements … I think a lot of people thought that would give them more choice …
but after a few years the reality became obvious that companies … for them to sponsor
[someone] they really wanted to know that they were taking on somebody that knew their
stuff and they wanted much more specific knowledge than perhaps a graduate with a
masters that covered a wider base.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 621

Candace noticed a similar trend. She commented that in many cases they had managed
to buffer the downward trend in incoming international students from India. Instead it
had continued to be one of their biggest markets and she commented that the recruit-
ment officers for South Asia would spend around 70% of their time focusing on the
India market. Like Judith, she reflected on the changing student demand, whereas
before the changes in visa regulations students were very interested in MBA and
masters in business programmes, now they were much more interested in more special-
ist degrees and even undergraduate options. She believed that this was due to a contin-
ued undersupply in India for these courses and increasing competition to study at
public universities. It was, therefore, not so much a case of limited demand from
India, but that the markets were changing, and universities had to respond quickly to
capture that demand as in any other market.
Furthermore, Candace also commented on the importance of their international
agents’ conference to which they invite a number of delegates (perhaps as many as 50)
every year. She felt that this was a crucial element of how they sold not only the university
(including teaching styles) to their agent partners, who in turn sell it to the students, but
also how they sell the city more widely and the student experience:
we don’t just put them in front of PowerPoint presentations but we actually allow them to
engage with the style of lectures students might be taking or we show them the labs where
they do practical based activities … we take them out for a meal … and we don’t take
them to a posh restaurant we take them to a restaurant … which is of a realistic budget
for a student to go, so they can see the city through a student’s eyes rather than through
… a professional delegate’s view because … we think that reinforces [the university] when
they then talk to potential applicants in the future.

With so much effort going into the conference and the opportunities for agents to not only
experience classes and nightlife, but also to meet students that they had recruited to the
university was deemed to have an overall positive influence. Perhaps not surprising
then that they had not suffered in the same way as other universities. All of this was at
the expense of the university with the belief that showing them good hospitality and an
excellent student experience would be reflected in future enrolments.
This research shows that it is possible to maintain or buffer the downward trend and
this appeared to be easiest for universities which had a greater vocational focus, such as
some of those which had formerly been polytechnics, or those who had adapted rapidly
to the changing marketplace. The effects of the changing visa policy were also felt less
keenly by universities at the top of the league tables who were perennially popular with
international students and did not have to rely on agent-led recruitment because their
reputations far exceeded this (note how this differs from the intermediaries involved in
skilled migration who produce the reputation outcomes of certain locations (such as
Harvey, Groutsis and van den Broek 2018)). In contrast to this, those that did not
feature as highly on league tables, and nor were they renowned for their vocational
focus, appeared to suffer more from the end of the post-study work visa. Agents and
other similar migration entrepreneurs were therefore key to driving recruitment
unless the university was at the top of the league tables, thus from this perspective
the power relationship is reversed with universities reliant on agents to facilitate
mobility.
622 S. E. BEECH

Conclusions and new directions

This is only one study, and it needs to be investigated in a variety of different education
contexts in greater detail, it nevertheless has drawn critical attention to the role of higher
education recruitment agents within international student mobility, moving the focus
away from the role of the student in this process. Whilst these are important, the
student perspective ignores how mobility involves multiple actors (such as international
education agents) who work on a transnational basis to support migration (Spaan and
Hillman 2013; Spaan and Von Naerssen 2017). Given the role that these individuals
play in encouraging mobility and the complex power relationships that evolve between
international education agents and universities, it is crucial that we recognise the role
they play in student recruitment, especially in markets such as India and China.
International student recruitment is a key migration industry with UK HEIs competing
for international students on a global scale. In the UK, universities routinely establish
agent relationships to promote their higher education offering, and will pay them commis-
sion for every student that they recruit on their behalf (Matthews 2012; Huang, Raimo,
and Humfrey 2014). Given the strength of the agent relationships in the Indian market,
it therefore comes as little or no surprise that this market has suffered in particular
from the end of the Post-Study Work Visa. An agent’s role is to advise and guide students
in their decision-making and respond to their particular needs and demands (Collins
2012). They are able to offer suggestions to students and promote individual universities.
Furthermore, research shows that students tend to follow predetermined ‘pathways’ to
their mobility, following in the footsteps of their social networks in terms of destination
(Beech 2015; see also Harvey et al. 2018). With this in mind, and as more and more stu-
dents choose alternative higher education destinations other than the UK, there could be
significant longer term recruitment issues which develop.
However, this research shows that having the ‘right’ degree programme can help to
overcome this downward trend. It is notable that the two universities which stated that
they had maintained their Indian student recruitment were post-1992 universities
which prided themselves in their vocational focus and also emphasised work placement
opportunities during their degrees. It appears that Indian students view this positively,
and believe that such experiences will lead to better career outcomes which, given how
they fund their university education, makes them an appealing prospective when choosing
where to study. It is important to note that neither of these universities were high achievers
in league tables (either on a national or international scale), a common issue with many
post-1992 HEIs and the bias which persists towards research intensive and longer estab-
lished universities within these tables (Bowden 2000). This suggest that whilst league table
performance at the highest level was one way of maintaining healthy student recruitment
in spite of visa changes, it was by no means the only way of ensuring a healthy inter-
national student community. It should also be noted, of course, that expectation of
what was a good performance in terms of international student recruitment did vary
depending on past performances and the existing international student community.
Nonetheless, universities could potentially learn from this and tailor their university
degrees or highlight placement opportunities to appeal to these students.
Whilst there is continued debate on the influence of the end of the Post-Study Work
Visa in the UK tertiary education system,2 we should not underestimate the speed with
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 623

which the expectation of an opportunity to stay in the UK for work took hold. Judith, who
worked at a Post-1992 university, which had maintained international and Indian student
communities articulated this when she discussed the sudden cultural shift in student
expectations:
I was based in the Indian subcontinent for a long time … there’s a lot of people who came and
studied in the UK 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and … if you ask them
about the Post Study Work Visa they laugh at you because it is such a foreign concept that
you would automatically be given a right to [work] somewhere, but I suppose it’s a real sign
of the times. In a very short period of time people became accustomed and then accepted that
you could stay after you had completed your studies.

Her reflections only serve to highlight that student mobility is now an industry driven by
market forces of supply and demand. Students are interested in obtaining the best possible
higher education qualifications available to them, but also in their longer term economic
trajectories. Consequently, they have increasingly sought opportunities to study in desti-
nations where they could pursue longer term migration opportunities such as Canada and
Australia. Articulating opportunities to agents for vocational opportunities built into
degree programmes may help to revive markets which have experienced recent decline
as they pass these messages on to prospective international students, and facilitate their
mobility to the UK.

Notes
1. EU policy states that any incoming students from elsewhere in the EU must be treated as
local students, so there is no opportunity for variable fees.
2. The devolved Scottish Parliament has debated at length the need to reinstate the policy, citing
significant losses in international student numbers and therefore significant financial losses,
not only to the sector but to the economy more generally (BBC 2016).

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Carl Griffin for his comments on earlier versions of this paper and the two
anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback. Thanks are also due to Sophie Cranston,
Joris Schapendonk and Ernst Spaan, the editors of this special issue, for all their work in putting
it together.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Adnett, N. 2010. “The Growth of International Students and Economic Development: Friends or
Foes?” Journal of Education Policy 25 (5): 625–637.
BBC. 2016. “MSPs Call on Government to Reinstate Post-Study Work Visa [Online].” Accessed
March 11, 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35561131.
Beech, S. E. 2015. “International Student Mobility: The Role of Social Networks.” Social and
Cultural Geography 16 (3): 332–350.
624 S. E. BEECH

Betts, A. 2013. “The Migration Industry in Global Migration Governance.” In The Migration
Industry and the Commercialization of International Migration, edited by T. Gammeltoft-
Hansen and N. N. Sørensen, 45–63. Abingdon: Routledge.
Blanden, J., and S. Machin. 2004. “Educational Inequality and the Expansion of UK Higher
Education.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 51 (2): 230–249.
Bowden, R. 2000. “Fantasy High Education: University and College League Tables.” Quality in
Higher Education 6 (1): 41–60.
Brooks, R., and J. Waters. 2011. Student Mobilities, Migration and the Internationalization of
Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, L., J. Edwards, and H. Hartwell. 2010. “A Taste of the Unfamiliar. Understanding Meanings
Attached to Food by International Postgraduate Students in England.” Appetite 54 (1): 202–207.
Choudaha, R., and L. Chang. 2012. Trends in International Student Mobility. New York: World
Education Services.
Collins, F. L. 2008. “Bridges to Learning: International Student Mobilities, Education Agencies and
Inter-Personal Networks.” Global Networks 8 (4): 398–417.
Collins, F. L. 2012. “Organizing Student Mobility: Education Agents and Student Migration to New
Zealand.” Pacific Affairs 85 (5): 137–160.
Collins, F. L., and K. C. Ho. 2014. “Globalising Higher Education and Cities in Asia and the Pacific.”
Asia and Pacific Viewpoint 55 (2): 127–131.
Cranston, S. 2016. “Producing Migrant Encounter: Learning to be a British Expatriate in Singapore
Through the Global Migration Industry.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (4):
655–671.
Cranston, S. 2018. “Calculating the Migration Industries: Knowing the Successful Expatriate in the
Global Mobility Industry.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44 (4): 626–643. doi:10.1080/
1369183X.2017.1315517.
Cranston, S., J. Schapendonk, and E. Spaan. 2018. “New Directions in Exploring the Migration
Industries: Introduction to Special Issue.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44 (4):
543–557. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315504.
Deakin, H., and K. Wakefield. 2014. “Skype Interviewing: Reflections of Two PhD Researchers.”
Qualitative Research 14 (5): 603–616.
Deem, R. 2001. “Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and Entrepreneurialism
in Universities: Is the Local Dimension Still Important?” Comparative Education 37 (1): 7–20.
Findlay, A. M., R. King, F. M. Smith, A. Geddes, and R. Skeldon. 2012. “World Class? An
Investigation of Globalisation, Difference and International Student Mobility.” Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers 37 (1): 118–131.
Foskett, N. 2011. “Markets, Government, Funding and the Marketisation of UK Higher Education.”
In The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer, edited by M.
Molesworth, R. Scullion, and E. Nixon, 25–38. London: Routledge.
Gopinath, D. 2015. “Characterizing Indian Students Pursuing Global Higher Education: A
Conceptual Framework of Pathways to Internationalization.” Journal of Studies in
International Education 19 (3): 283–305.
Gribble, C. 2008. “Policy Options for Managing International Student Migration: The Sending
Country’s Perspective.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30 (1): 25–39.
Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, William S., Dimitria Groutsis, and Diane van den Broek. 2018. “Intermediaries and
Destination Reputations: Explaining Flows of Skilled Migration.” Journal Of Ethnic And
Migration Studies 44 (4): 644–662. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315518.
HEFCE. 2004. Higher Education in the United Kingdom. Bristol: HEFCE.
Hernández-León, R. 2013. “Conceptualizing the Migration Industry.” In The Migration Industry
and the Commercialization of International Migration, edited by T. Gammeltoft-Hansen and
N. N. Sørensen, 24–44. Abingdon: Routledge.
HESA. 2016. “Student, Qualifiers and Staff Data Tables [ Online].” Accessed March 11, 2016.
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/1973/239/.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 625

Huang, I. Y., V. Raimo, and C. Humfrey. 2014. “Power and Control: Managing Agents for
International Student Recruitment in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education, Online
Early Publication. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.968543.
ICEF Monitor. 2012. “NCAC Panel Continues the Debate on US Agent Usage [Online]. Accessed
June 9, 2016. http://monitor.icef.com/2012/03/nacac-panel-continues-the-debate-on-us-agent-
usage/.
Lange, R. 2013. “Return Migration of Foreign Students and Non-Resident Tuition Fees.” Journal of
Population Economics 26 (2): 703–718.
Leung, M. W. H., and J. L. Waters. 2013. “British Degrees Made in Hong Kong: An Enquiry into the
Role of Space and Place in Transnational Education.” Asia Pacific Education Review 14: 43–53.
Ma, A. S. 2014. “Social Networks, Cultural Capital and Attachment to the Host City: Comparing
Overseas Chinese Students and Foreign Students in Taipei.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 55 (2): 226–241.
Madge, C., P. Raghuram, and P. Noxolo. 2009. “Engaged Pedagogy and Responsibility: A
Postcolonial Analysis of International Students.” Geoforum 40 (1): 34–45.
Matthews, D. 2012. “Grand Fee Paid for Each Foreign Student.” Times Higher Education, July
2. Accessed March 7, 2016. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/grand-fee-paid-for-
each-foreign-student/420468.article.
Mavroudi, E., and A. Warren. 2013. “Highly Skilled Migration and the Negotiation of Immigration
Policy: Non-EEA Postgraduate Students and Academic Staff at English Universities.” Geoforum
44: 261–270.
Mayhew, K., C. Deer, and M. Dua. 2004. “The Move to Mass Higher Education in the UK: Many
Questions and Some Answers.” Oxford Review of Education 30 (1): 65–82.
Naidoo, V. 2010. “From Ivory Towers to International Business: Are Universities Export Ready in
Their Recruitment of International Students?” Journal of Studies in International Education 14
(1): 5–28.
O’Connor, H., C. Madge, R. Shaw, and J. Wellens. 2008. “Internet-Based Interviewing.” In The
SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods, edited by N. Fielding, N. Lee, and G. Blank,
271–289. London: SAGE.
Olssen, M., and M. A. Peters. 2005. “Neoliberalism, Higher Education and the Knowledge Economy:
From the Free Market to Knowledge Capitalism.” Journal of Education Policy 20 (3): 313–345.
Pandit, K. 2009. “Leading Internationalization.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
99 (4): 645–656.
Simpson, R., J. Sturges, and P. Weight. 2010. “Transient, Unsettling and Creative Space:
Experiences of Liminality Through the Accounts of Chinese Students on a UK-Based MBA.”
Management Learning 41 (1): 53–70.
Spaan, E., and F. Hillman. 2013. “Migration Trajectories and the Migration Industry: Theoretical
Reflections and Empirical Examples from Asia.” In The Migration Industry and the
Commercialization of International Migration, edited by T. Gammeltoft-Hansen and N. N.
Sørensen, 64–86. Abingdon: Routledge.
Spaan, Ernst, and Ton Von Naerssen. 2018. “Migration Decision-making and Migration Industry
in the Indonesia–Malaysia Corridor.” Journal Of Ethnic And Migration Studies 44 (4): 680–695.
doi:10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315523.
Tang, A. Z. R., F. Rowe, J. Corcoran, and T. Sigler. 2014. “Where are the Overseas Graduates Staying
On? Overseas Graduate Migration and Rural Attachment in Australia.” Applied Geography 53:
66–76.
Tindal, S., H. Packwood, A. Findlay, S. Leahy, and D. McCollum. 2015. “In What Sense
‘Distinctive’? The Search for Distinction Amongst Cross-Border Student Migrants in the UK.”
Geoforum 64: 90–99.
Universities UK. 2014. International Students in Higher Education: The UK and its Competition.
London: Universities UK.
Waters, J. L. 2009. “In Pursuit of Scarcity: Transnational Students, ‘Employability’, and the MBA.”
Environment and Planning A 41 (8): 1865–1883.
Zheng, P. 2014. “Antecedents to International Student Inflows to UK Higher Education: A
Comparative Analysis.” Journal of Business Research 67 (2): 136–143.