AI in Admissions: Assistant not Replacement

The question in the room

At the IEAA Admissions and Compliance Forum in Adelaide earlier this year, a highly respected delegate asked me something I suspect many in the room were thinking: “How is AI going to change admissions at universities?”

It was a fair question, asked with a mix of genuine curiosity and some concern, and hinted at another underlying question: “Will there still be a place for people like us?” My answer was simple: AI is tool. One that will change how admissions teams spend their time, not whether they are needed. Institutions that do this well will use technology to take repetitive, low-value work off their desks, so experienced staff can focus on judgement, relationships and the student experience.

High use, low trust, and every offer counting

Most ANZ institutions are already using AI to some extent, but they want to see it well governed before they trust it. 

• A 2025 University of Melbourne and KPMG global study found that half of Australians use AI regularly, yet only 36% are willing to trust it. Australia and New Zealand rank among the lowest of 47 countries on AI acceptance.

• The same study found that 83% of Australians would be more willing to trust AI when assurances are in place, such as responsible governance, recognised standards and accuracy monitoring.

Australia’s National Planning Level for 2027 holds at 295,000 new overseas student commencements, with visa processing still prioritised by each provider’s progress against its allocation. When places are limited, the question shifts from how many applications to how well we convert the right ones. That is exactly where well-governed technology can earn its keep.

Efficiency that drives excellence

The best use of AI in admissions is not a robot making offers. It is removing friction at every stage of the funnel:

1. Enquiries: instant, accurate first responses at any hour, with qualified leads passed to a person.
2. Screening: automated document checks and chasing of missing items, so complete files reach assessors sooner.
3. Assessment: applications prioritised against the institution’s own entry and eligibility criteria, so experts focus on complex cases and better service.
4. Integrity: flags on documents and financials that need a closer look, followed by human-led credibility interviews.
5. Conversion: timely, personalised nudges that keep offer holders engaged through to CoE and visa lodgement.

The result is not just about speed. It is about consistency, a better applicant experience and more defensible decisions with a clear audit trail.

People first

AI does the sorting; people do the deciding. That principle should be the default position for every admissions office.

Teams are being asked to do more with less, with peak intakes arriving in waves and policy sometimes changing mid-cycle. Technology that absorbs the repetitive load means less burnout at peak and more time for the work that needs human judgement: borderline cases, credibility concerns, equity and access considerations and engagement with students, families and agents. Staff who can learn to supervise and improve AI tools become more valuable, not less.

Governance also comes first

In admissions, trust is vital. AI only adds value when it strengthens compliance, and the regulatory signals are clear.

• Privacy Act, from 10 December 2026: New Australian Privacy Principle 1.7 requires privacy policies to disclose where automated decision-making could significantly affect individuals. This includes tools that substantially assist a human decision, so admissions screening is squarely in view.
• TEQSA: Every Australian provider submitted a gen AI action plan in 2024, and TEQSA’s resulting toolkit is built around Process, People and Practice. That same governance should extend to admissions.
• National AI Plan (Australia) and AI Strategy (New Zealand): Both rely on existing laws rather than new AI Acts, so ESOS, the National Code and privacy law already apply to AI-assisted admissions.

In practice, good governance should mean an institution-wide AI position for admissions, a map of where automation touches applicant decisions, a named human accountable for every outcome, and regular testing for accuracy and bias.

Two thoughts for what comes next

1. Set your AI policy before you choose your tools. Decide first which decisions stay human, how risk is tested and how applicants are informed. With APP 1.7 commencing in December and TEQSA expecting institution-wide plans, an endorsed admissions AI policy is no longer optional. It is also what turns cautious staff and applicants into confident ones.
2. Invest in your people as much as your platforms, and measure value, not volume. Build AI literacy in your admissions and compliance teams. Then measure what matters under managed growth: time to offer, offer-to-enrolment conversion, applicant experience, diversity, risk and integrity outcomes.

Back to the question

So, how will AI impact admissions? It should make good teams faster, more consistent and more focused on the students and decisions that matter. It will not replace the judgement, care and accountability at the heart of our profession. With the right governance, AI is not a threat to admissions – it is a tool that we can use to deliver improved services and on-going excellence.

I’d really welcome your thoughts: how is your institution approaching AI in admissions?

1. Yes AI assistance was used in the editing and compilation of this article. Opinions decidedly my own!