Skip to content
UniConnect360
For admissions and international offices

A university-facing track for clearer applications.

UniConnect360 is a Dutch cloud platform for structured student profiles, applications, communication and tracking. This page separates what is available today, proposed for a pilot programme and on the roadmap.

partnerships@uniconnect360.com

No university is currently onboarded. A partnership conversation defines whether a pilot programme is useful; it does not imply a live university workspace.

Where this stands

What a university-facing track means today.

Available today is advisor-led support. Pilot programme is a proposed scope, not an active deployment. Roadmap is future work with no promised date.

Start with a defined scope

There is no partner roster to join. A first conversation tests whether the existing advisor-led service and a possible pilot scope fit your admissions process. It does not create a system connection or an onboarding commitment.

How the service works for a student today

  • A scoped conversation with the team building it

    Available today

    You would speak directly with the team shaping the university track. The conversation is about your admissions process and the boundaries of the current service, not a promise of deployment.

  • Input into a potential pilot scope

    Available today

    The record model for programmes, entry requirements and deadlines is still being shaped. Your admissions rules can inform a future pilot scope before it is fixed.

  • Applications a person has already checked

    Available today

    An advisor reads every file and grades it against your stated requirements before anything is submitted. Files that will not clear do not reach your office. This is the part of the service that exists today.

  • Application tracking in one shared record

    Pilot programme

    A structured application record is the proposed pilot scope. It would bring profile, programme, date, documents and status together. No university-facing tracking workspace is live today.

  • A reviewed programme record, sourced and dated

    Pilot programme

    A programme record would be reviewed with your office before it is published. No university programme page is currently offered through this track.

  • University workspace and native connections

    Roadmap

    This roadmap item would connect a university workspace with its own systems. It is not available, no university uses it today and no delivery date is promised.

The process

Five stages. From conversation to roadmap.

The first two stages are conversations and review. A pilot programme only starts after a defined scope. The final stage is roadmap work, not a live university connection.

  • Conversation

    An introductory conversation

    You tell us about your programmes and admissions process. We distinguish the advisor-led service available today from possible pilot scope and roadmap work.

    Nothing is signed at this stage and nothing needs to be. If you need a native connection, we will identify it as roadmap work rather than imply it exists.

  • Requirements review

    A review of the programmes we would represent

    We read the bando, or the admissions page, for every programme on the list. We write down the entry requirements, the language evidence you accept, and the deadlines.

    If we cannot open the document, we ask you for it. A programme whose call we have not read does not go in the catalogue, so this stage decides the size of the list rather than confirming it.

  • Pilot scope

    Agreement on what a pilot would cover

    We agree what a reviewed programme record, structured profile and application status should include. Any published figure links to your own page and carries the date we last opened it.

    A pilot is not active until both sides agree its scope. We would rather start with a small, reviewed set of programmes than copy a prospectus into a catalogue.

  • Pilot programme

    An advisor-led pilot intake

    If a pilot programme begins, one intake would follow the current advisor-led process: your existing portal, the student's name and the student's own mailbox.

    You judge the file quality rather than the pitch. We do not ask for a volume commitment. We cannot promise a volume of qualified applicants, so we will not be held to one.

  • Roadmap

    University workspace and native connections

    A future workspace could centralise application tracking and communication, then connect with your systems without manual re-entry.

    This roadmap item has no delivery date, and no university uses it today. It is listed so a pilot is not mistaken for a live connection.

The exchange

What we commit to, and what we ask for.

Six things. Three are ours to keep and three are yours to send. Ours are the rules this site already runs on, restated for an admissions office.

What we commit to

  • Every figure about you carries a source and a date

    We link your page, not our summary of it. If a figure has not been re-checked this cycle, the record says so rather than implying that it has.

  • Applications arrive pre-checked by a human

    An advisor reads the documents and grades them against your published requirements first. An approval that everybody gets is not an approval, so some files do not pass.

  • We never represent a programme we have not read the bando for

    No call document, no catalogue record. This is the rule the other two rest on, and it is why our list will start shorter than the ones you are used to seeing from agents.

What we ask for

  • An admissions contact

    One person, or one address that a person reads. We would rather write to a named office than post into a general enquiry form and wait.

  • The current bando, or the URL it lives at

    The document itself, not a summary of it. If the next cycle's call is not published yet, tell us when it usually appears and we will watch for it.

  • Written confirmation of what you require for recognition

    A CIMEA Statement of Comparability, or a Declaration of Value from the Italian Embassy. Your institution has to state which one in writing, and an applicant who prepares the wrong one cannot fix it afterwards.

The one thing to settle first

Why the recognition question comes first

A non-EU applicant must have their qualification recognised. There are two accepted routes, and the institution has to state in writing which one it requires.

A student who prepares the wrong one starts again. From Pakistan, every academic document in that chain has to be legalised and translated first. None of that is undone by an email.

  • Issued by CIMEA

    Statement of Comparability and Verification

    CIMEAchecked

  • Issued in loco by the Italian Embassy

    Declaration of Value

    Embassy of Italy, Islamabadchecked

Nobody publishes how often this happens; the embassy publishes no refusal reasons at all. What is published is the requirement. One sentence from your office at stage two settles it for every applicant we send you.

The full Type D visa checklist we work from

For procurement

The evidence your procurement office will ask for.

Accessibility is a purchasing question in European public institutions, and it is usually the question a supplier answers last. Here is where each piece of it stands, including the piece that is not finished.

  1. Roadmap

    A WCAG 2.2 AA conformance statement

    All 56 Level AA criteria, each marked pass, fail or not applicable, with the evidence behind the mark. It is being assembled and it is not finished. WCAG 2.2 AA is the contractual standard for this site, not an aspiration for it.

    W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2checked

  2. Available today

    An accessibility statement, with a route to report a barrier

    A page on this domain that names the standard, lists the issues we already know about, and gives you somewhere to report one we do not. Known issues are published rather than fixed quietly.

  3. Roadmap

    Test results, including what each sweep missed

    Automated checks on every template, plus a manual pass: keyboard only, screen reader, zoom to 200 per cent, and reflow at 320 pixels with no horizontal scroll. Both thresholds are WCAG 2.2 criteria, not house style.

    W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2checked

  4. Available today

    Where the European Accessibility Act sits

    The Act has applied since June 2025. Whether it binds a given service depends on the contract and the sector. So we do not wear it as a badge. We build to WCAG 2.2 AA either way and can evidence it when you ask.

    European Accessibility Act, Directive (EU) 2019/882checked

Read the accessibility statement. It names the standard and lists what we already know is wrong. You can report anything we have missed. This page needs no JavaScript to work, which is also why it opens on a slow connection.

What this page reads from

Four documents. Open any of them.

The recognition rule and the accessibility standard on this page both come from these four documents. If their wording and ours disagree, theirs is right and ours is a bug.

Each document above prints the day we last opened it. Everything else on this page was reviewed on 4 September 2026.

One email, read by the people who would be on the call.

This site stores nothing: no name, no address, no field on any page. Write to us and the message reaches the team directly, rather than a queue.

partnerships@uniconnect360.com. No form, no field, nothing stored.

Arrived here as a student? This page is for institutions, so check what you qualify for instead. Three questions, the full result on screen, free, and no account.

What to put in the email

  1. Your institution, and the programmes you want filled
  2. The bando or the admissions URL, if it is published
  3. Whether you require CIMEA or a Declaration of Value
  4. Who we should speak to, and roughly when suits

A person replies, not an autoresponder. If you need a roadmap item rather than the advisor-led service available today, we say so on the first call.