At this year’s International College Online Forum (IHEF), much of the conversation concentrated on the pressures dealing with international trainee recruitment: slowing need in crucial markets, increasing competitors from developed and emerging locations, and a more volatile and politicised policy environment in the UK.But focussing too heavily on external pressures dangers concealing services that stay within institutions’ control. The more instant obstacle lies closer to home: how universities understand cost, rate their deal and define worth.
The volume illusion
For numerous institutions, the default position has actually been to push for more volume– more students to satisfy higher earnings targets. That instinct significantly rests on a basic assumption that more trainees automatically equate into more worth.
But that presumption is now breaking down. The expense of recruiting international students has actually risen considerably in recent years: representative commission, marketing invest and in-market operations are all increasing, wearing down the margin that extra trainee volume is supposed to deliver.
In many cases, universities are now paying a third or more of overall tuition fee income simply in commission, before accounting for other recruitment expenses, and before the costs of teaching and supporting those students.
The result is foreseeable: net revenue per student is under pressure.
In some cases, as soon as costs are totally represented, organizations are entrusted less per worldwide student than they receive from domestic trainees, a level university leaders already argue is inadequate.
So we have reached a point where more volume does not always mean more worth. In reality in many cases, organizations are scaling activity that is only partially rewarding– or even worse.
The issue isn’t employers– it’s the system
It is very important to say that this is not a failure of recruitment teams. If anything, the reverse is true. Many groups are operating under a set of deeply conflicting signals:
- volume targets that continue to increase;
- pressure to discount through scholarships to stay competitive;
- competitors on agent commission to secure pipeline;
- and expectations from senior leadership around margin, quality, diversification and ‘accountable recruitment’.
These goals are not naturally incompatible, but they are seldom aligned in practice. The result is a familiar pattern: a race to the bottom on in-year discounts; a race to the top on commission; and no clear structure for handling the compromises in between them.
The outcome is a familiar pattern: a race to the bottom on in-year discounts; a race to the top on commission; and no clear structure for managing the compromises in between them
The expense of acquisition problem
At the heart of this problem is a more essential weak point: a lack of clarity about expense. Across the institutions I have actually worked with recently, 3 patterns prevail:
- no single, integrated view of cost of acquisition;
- limited attribution of costs by market or recruitment channel;
- pricing choices made without a clear understanding of the underlying expense base.
Even where information exists, it is typically fragmented across functions:
- marketing invest that is difficult to link to particular results;
- uncoordinated scholarship budgets spread out across central and scholastic systems;
- staffing released on set local strategies;
- commission structures locked into agreements and only noticeable after enrolment
In other words, expenses are hardly ever integrated, coordinated or actively managed. And this has a direct repercussion: if you do not understand your expense of acquisition, you do not have a technique but rather a series of activities.
The impression of rates complexity
If cost is badly comprehended, it is unsurprising that rates is underdeveloped.
Despite the obvious intricacy of global portfolios, the majority of universities operate with a relatively little number of fee points across hundreds of programs. Yet prices is still normally set through an annual committee routine:
- benchmarking versus in 2015’s competitors;
- applying an inflationary uplift;
- and rolling that forward throughout the portfolio.
This method presumes: stable need, steady competition and consistent understandings of worth. None of which now hold.
As a result, rates is often:
- weakly connected to demand;
- disconnected from expense of acquisition;
- and insufficiently aligned to institutional method.
Simply put, we act as pricing complex but in practice utilize it as blunt instrument.
The levy as a forcing function
The intro of a levy on global students in England includes a new measurement to this discussion but it does not essentially change it. Instead, it makes the problems more difficult to neglect.
By connecting a specific extra expense to each global trainee, the levy forces organizations to believe more carefully about net earnings after expenses. And when institutions start thinking in those terms, the need to align prices, cost of acquisition and recruitment strategy becomes a lot more immediate.
From volume to worth
So where does this leave us? The challenges dealing with worldwide recruitment are genuine. But responding to them through ever-increasing volume is not likely to supply a sustainable option.
Rather, organizations need to make a more essential shift: from volume-driven recruitment to value-driven technique. This suggests:
- dealing with expense of acquisition as a core management metric, not a spin-off;
- using prices intentionally to accomplish strategic priorities, not as an annual benchmarking exercise;
- making specific trade-offs in between volume, margin, diversity and quality;
- lining up monetary, academic and recruitment objectives around a shared meaning of worth.
Without that shift, organizations run the risk of continuing to go after volume in ways that do not deliver worth or sustainability.
Universities can not control need, policy or competitors, but they can manage how they rate, handle cost and specify worth.
< img src ="// www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E"/ > < img src="https://thepienews.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/TheStayClub-600x500-copy-1.jpg"/ >