The One Question 80% of Admissions Directors Can't Answer

Every September, business schools across Europe watch prospective students start applications and then vanish halfway through. Not because programmes lack quality. Not because marketing failed. Because the systems don't work.

Application systems that were never designed to work together create friction at every transition point. The result: lost revenue, burnt-out staff, and strategic paralysis that prevents you from launching new programmes whilst the market is actually asking for them.

‍

Why Do Students Abandon University Applications?

Research across European higher education shows that application abandonment concentrates at three predictable moments: document submission, payment processing, and status uncertainty periods longer than 7-10 days.

Watch what happens when someone applies to your MBA programme:

1. They're redirected to a third-party portal with different branding
2. They create another login (their fifth for your institution)
3. They upload a CV and the system rejects it without explanation
4. They receive an automated email addressing them as "Dear Applicant"
5. Ten days pass with no communication
6. They accept an offer elsewhere

Each friction point exists because systems don't talk to each other. Marketing platforms don't sync with application portals. Application portals don't connect to payment systems. Someone manually transfers data between them using spreadsheets.

‍

How Much Does This Actually Cost?

The visible costs are straightforward: lost tuition revenue, staff time on manual work, IT resources consumed by maintenance.

But here's what's worse: you probably can't see where the real problems are.

You spent €200,000 on a recruitment fair in Asia last year. How many applications from that fair converted to enrolments? Can you answer in five minutes? If not, you're making strategic decisions based on incomplete information.

Industry data shows that institutions requiring applicants to navigate five or more separate systems experience conversion rates 30-40% lower than those with three or fewer integrated platforms. For a business school with 1,000 serious enquiries and €25,000 annual tuition, that's €1.75-3 million in annual revenue difference.

Your admissions teams report spending 40-60% of their time on data handling rather than applicant engagement. That's 2-3 full-time people consumed by system management instead of doing actual admissions work.

But the biggest cost? What you can't build because you're maintaining what barely works.

‍

The Strategic Paralysis Problem

Your executive education team wants to launch micro-credentials. Marketing wants to test flexible pricing. Your dean is discussing corporate partnerships.

None of it happens because implementing these ideas requires six months of system configuration and custom development. Your IT team is already underwater maintaining fragmented infrastructure.

This is strategic paralysis disguised as a technology problem. The market is moving toward shorter programmes, stackable credentials, and lifelong learning. Meanwhile, you're stuck managing systems built for a different era.

‍

How Long Does Fixing This Actually Take?

Implementation timelines vary dramatically:

Custom development: 3-5 years, €2-4 million initial investment, plus 15-20% annually for maintenance. By the time you finish, student expectations have evolved and you're building version two before version one is adopted.

Adapting generic business software: 18-36 months, €500k-2 million implementation cost. You spend years bending platforms designed for B2B sales cycles into something that handles student recruitment. When consultants leave, they take institutional knowledge with them. Your IT team inherits fragile customisations that break with every platform update.

Purpose-built platforms: 6-16 weeks, €50k-150k implementation cost. Higher-ed workflows included out of the box. Integrates with existing systems rather than replacing them.

The real question isn't timeline. It's opportunity cost. Whilst you're spending 36 months in implementation, how many programme launches are you missing? How many market opportunities pass by?

‍

Five Warning Signs Your Systems Are Holding You Back

1. Your admissions team can't answer basic questions. Which programmes have the highest dropout rates? Where do applicants abandon? Which recruitment channels convert? If these answers require three-day custom reports, you're flying blind.

2. Your IT team operates in maintenance mode. They spend more time keeping integrations working than building new capabilities. You've hired strategic enablers but reduced them to system administrators.

3. Faculty have developed workarounds. They've built personal spreadsheets to track applications because the official system doesn't work. When intelligent people create workarounds, the system has failed.

4. New programme launches take forever. Someone proposed a micro-credential six months ago. You're still configuring systems to support it. Your technology has become a strategic constraint.

5. You can't run experiments. Testing a different application form or payment structure requires development work. You make big bets instead of small tests because experimentation costs too much.

‍

Three Questions to Evaluate Your Tech Stack

How many separate systems must a prospective student navigate between enquiry and enrolment? Count every login, every platform transition, every time they re-enter information. Each one is a dropout point where you lose visibility into what's happening.

What percentage of your admissions team's time is spent on data handling versus applicant engagement? Good admissions people want to evaluate candidates and guide decisions. Not manage spreadsheets. If system administration consumes more than 30% of their capacity, something's wrong.

How quickly can you respond to market opportunities? A corporate partner proposes a custom programme. Student demand shifts. Can you respond in weeks or does it take months? Your technology determines whether you seize opportunities or watch them pass.

‍

What Actually Changes When Technology Works

This isn't really about technology. It's about what becomes possible when technology stops getting in the way.

When application systems work, admissions teams focus on judgement calls that matter: evaluating fit, identifying students who need support, spotting talent that metrics miss. Manual data entry consumes less than 20% of their capacity instead of 40-60%.

When payments process smoothly, finance teams gain strategic capacity for forecasting and planning instead of tracking down missing transactions.

When data flows properly, leadership sees pipeline health in real-time and makes proactive adjustments instead of reactive corrections.

But most importantly: when your technology works, you can experiment. Launch micro-credentials within 6-8 weeks. Test pricing models. Respond to partnership opportunities. Adapt to shifting student preferences as they emerge.

Market agility becomes possible because technical agility exists.

‍

The Real Question

Your prospective students compare your application process to every other digital experience in their lives. They expect systems that work as smoothly as booking a flight. They're not being unreasonable. They're being human.

The question isn't whether technology matters. It's whether yours helps you grow or holds you back.

Right now, a highly qualified candidate is choosing between programmes. If your application process creates unnecessary friction, the quality of your education becomes irrelevant. They're making a decision based on the experience you delivered.

And right now, your institution is deciding which programmes to launch next year. If your technology can't support what the market actually wants, your strategic plan is already out of date.

The institutions that will lead higher education over the next decade aren't the ones with the best technology. They're the ones whose technology lets them focus on what actually matters: delivering excellent education to students who can access it easily, adapt it to their needs, and return throughout their careers.

Does your technology stack enable that future, or is it anchoring you to the past?‍