Faculties, programmes, batches, semesters and phases as the enrolment structure, so a college is not describing itself in a model built for a primary school.
Book a demoA college evaluates school software and finds it assumes classes and sections. So a programme becomes a "class", a semester becomes a "term", and the registrar spends the first year explaining to everybody what the labels actually mean.
Then a student repeats one semester while progressing in another, or transfers between programmes carrying credit. The model has no way to express it, so the real record moves into a spreadsheet.
When the structure matches the institution, none of that translation happens.
Grouped by the job it does rather than listed as one long set of features.
The organisational shape a higher education institution actually has, rather than a flat list of classes.
Degree and diploma programmes with their own duration, structure and session fees.
Cloneable between intakes, so a new cohort starts from last year rather than from a blank structure.
The cohort a student belongs to, which is how a college actually thinks about who is where.
Enrolment, teaching and assessment organised by semester rather than by an academic year that does not describe the institution.
Sub-divisions within a programme with their own student lists, for institutions that need them.
Fee structures attached to the programme and session rather than to a class, so billing follows enrolment.
Moving between semesters, repeating one, or transferring programme without losing the record.
Enrolment and progression by faculty, programme and intake, current rather than compiled.
The programme called a class. School software with no concept of a faculty forces a college to relabel everything. Every new member of staff then has to be taught the translation before they can use the system.
The student repeating one semester. Progressing in some subjects, repeating another. Systems built around a single year-group cannot express it, so the truth moves to a spreadsheet.
The transfer that lost the credit. A student moves programme and their completed semesters do not follow, because the record was tied to the programme rather than to the person.
The fee tied to a class. Session fees belong to the programme and intake. Billing built around class-level fees cannot charge two students in the same room different amounts for different programmes.
These are the cases worth testing in a demo. Bring the messiest one you have.
The same records, presented differently depending on the job.
Defines faculties, programmes and semesters, manages progression and keeps the structure current.
See their own programmes and cohorts rather than the whole institution.
See their programme, semester and progression in their own portal.
Enrolment and progression by faculty and intake, which is what planning actually needs.
The academic structure is what the rest of the institution attaches to. A student belongs to a programme and a semester rather than to a class, so fees, attendance and examinations all read that shape.
Timetabling works against programmes and cohorts. Session fees bill through the same fee structure. Results attach to the semester they belong to, so a transcript reflects progression rather than a flat list of years.
That is the difference between software a college can use and software a college has to translate.
The parts of the institution this touches most.
The repeat, the transfer, the programme that runs across three semesters. If the model does not fit, we would rather know now.
Book a demo