Cheating by any other name is still cheating
The New York Times tells the story of recruiting firms taking money from both students and universities to facilitate placement of students . . .
When Xiaoxi Li, a 20-year-old from Beijing, decided she should go to college in the United States, she applied only to Ohio University — not that she knew much about it.
What brought her here was the recommendation of a Chinese recruiting agent, JJL Overseas Education Consulting and Service Company. For about $3,000, JJL helped Ms. Li choose a college, complete the application and prepare for the all-important visa interview.
“Everyone I know used an agent,” she said. “They are professionals. They suggested Ohio University might be the best for me. They have a good relationship with Ohio University.”
Actually, JJL has more than a good relationship with Ohio University. Unknown to Ms. Li, it has a contract, under which the agent gets a $1,000 commission for each undergraduate it sends.
British and Australian universities have for years paid commissions to overseas recruiting agents, and as a result have attracted a growing share of international students. Now the practice is spreading in the United States, especially at community colleges and public universities eager to enroll more international students, who may pay several times the in-state tuition.
But the use of agents is raising uncomfortable questions and strong feelings, with some education officials queasy about a system in which those who advise students on their college selection have a financial stake in the choice, an approach they fear could make the college-admissions process into a global bounty hunt.
“Putting recruiters on any kind of commission makes them out and out sales agents,” said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Like JJL, many agents collect hefty fees from both sides — the students they advise, and the universities they contract with — leaving some to question whose interest is being served. Even some advocates of recruiting agents see a need for an ethics code.
“. . . could make the process into a global bounty hunt”. You think?
Separately, a saga unwatched by anyone not deeply invested in the New England Patriots continues to play out with yet another round of alleged cheating and impropriety, most recently around illegal taping of the other team’s activities . . .
The N.F.L. team executive said the Patriots were the subject of most of the accusations discussed in the rules committee’s deliberations. The team’s recent success and tight-lipped approach, as personified by Belichick, has played a role.
“They were the only team, really,” the executive said. “Clearly, they were the team mentioned far more than anybody else.”
Once the Patriots were caught taping, it only served to heighten speculation about what else they might be doing.
In the case of the piece on academic recruiting, I’ll concede the point that it was an exercise in reporting vs. Op Ed. Still, the prevaricating language does a poor job of masking the obvious: taking money from both sides of an advice-based relationship isn’t “dubious”, or “borderline,” or anything of the sort. It’s unethical.
I put these two examples, student bounty hunting and sports cheating in juxtaposition to each other to illustrate an important point. It doesn’t take much to erode confidence in the fairness of any system, game, or institution. I have friends who decry any mention of the idea of a “slippery slope,” but I don’t buy it. It’s an easy slide to the bottom once you start playing in the dark (to mix a metaphor). I suprised that self-proclaimed bastions of ethical behavior like Ohio State (where academic plagerism is cause for expulsion) participate in such a sham at all. The NFL is another matter entirely.
Tags: Cheating, Recruiting, Ethics, New England Patriots, NFL. JJL Overseas Education Consulting and Service Company, Ohio State
