International education stands at a promising yet pivotal moment. While global student mobility is projected to reach 9 million by 2030, institutions face increasing scrutiny through visa restrictions, retention concerns, and growing expectations for employment outcomes. The volume-driven recruitment approach that fueled expansion is reaching its limits, requiring a shift toward quality, alignment, and outcomes.
The opportunity lies in transforming resources many institutions already have. Most universities have invested in in-country representatives (ICRs), but these roles typically function merely as information providers or education fair representatives. Their performance metrics focus almost exclusively on application numbers rather than student quality or program fit. In my work helping institutions implement strategic changes, I’ve seen how even modest adjustments to these existing roles can yield remarkable results.
The most effective transformation shifts ICRs from information disseminators to skills assessment specialists. Rather than simply collecting applications, representatives promote specific disciplines and conduct discipline-specific evaluations – from coding challenges for technology programs to case studies for business applicants. This approach directly addresses both institutional pain points and student concerns: skills-matched students show higher retention rates, better visa outcomes, and stronger graduate employment.
Implementation begins with changing how ICR performance is measured. When representatives are evaluated on skills-match rates and student outcomes rather than application volumes, their approach fundamentally shifts. QS Insights reports that institutions transitioning to this model see 42% better quality outcomes within the first recruitment cycle. The most effective approach starts with pilot programs in specific disciplines while maintaining traditional activities elsewhere.
A Canadian university I work with demonstrated this concept’s power by providing its regional representatives training on what makes its computer science program unique. Without expanding headcount, they achieved a significant increase in CS enrolments, to the point that CS-fuelled growth helped the faculty of science overtake engineering as the top program of choice for applicants from India moving engineering to second place.
The model works because it empowers ICRs with information beyond the University website, this in turn helps them to identify students who are genuinely prepared to succeed, not just those who can complete an application.
The financial case is compelling. While retraining ICRs requires nil to modest investment (in time), the higher conversions in direct enrollment numbers ensure that cost per enrolled student drops after the first year compared to 100% commission-based recruitment.
Most institutions achieve full ROI within 16-18 months. More importantly, this approach addresses growing student concerns about return on investment. Those who are familiar with this geographic region know that applicants want clear employment pathways (as reinforced by IDP’s Emerging Future Survey released earlier this year) – something transformed ICRs can effectively communicate using program-specific outcome data and alumni success stories.
The implementation benefits from structured methodologies and transition frameworks. Institutions that benchmark their current practices against industry standards and develop clear transformation roadmaps will achieve faster results with fewer disruptions. External assessment can often identify quick wins and prioritise improvement opportunities based on institutional context.
Those who take this leap will not only see immediate enrolment benefits but will position themselves as quality-focused institutions that genuinely care about student success
As competition intensifies and student ROI expectations grow, institutions can no longer afford to maintain volume-focused recruitment models. The time for transformation is now. Begin by selecting one strategic discipline for a pilot program, redefining ICR metrics around skills-match rates rather than application numbers, and measuring the quality outcomes within your first recruitment cycle.
Those who take this leap will not only see immediate enrolment benefits but will position themselves as quality-focused institutions that genuinely care about student success. In a sector facing increasing scrutiny, the question isn’t whether to transform your recruitment approach, but how quickly you can implement the change.
About the author: Maria Mathai is director of M.M Advisory Services, specialising in strategic international recruitment and market intelligence for higher education institutions. Awarded the Governor General of Canada’s Award for promoting international education. Her expertise spans direct recruitment, agency management, and skills-based assessment.
