For DLAs to function effectively, it’s essential that employers and TEOs have a clear and agreed understanding of their respective roles in the recruitment and selection process. Unlike traditional tertiary education entry, where the education provider typically makes autonomous decisions about admission, DLAs require employers to be actively involved in selecting who they wish to hire and support through the qualification. If this division of responsibility is not well articulated, it can lead to duplicated effort, gaps in communication with candidates, or misalignment in expectations between employment suitability and academic readiness. In some cases, this may also result in delays or confusion that discourage prospective apprentices or frustrate employers.

Strong practice includes written protocols or memoranda of understanding between TEOs and employers outlining how roles and responsibilities will be shared. For instance, employers may lead the recruitment process up to the point of making a job offer where the ‘training contract’ serves as a prerequisite for enrolment at a TEO, while TEOs then assess academic readiness, facilitate RPL if needed, and confirm enrolment. In coordinated models, both parties may participate in shared interviews or assessment centres. In others, aspects of each process could be contracted out to other groups such as industry associations, chambers of commerce or work-based learning providers. The clarity this brings not only improves internal workflows but also supports candidates by making the process transparent and predictable. It also ensures that key functions such as reference checks, aptitude testing, or pastoral needs assessments are assigned to the organisation best placed to deliver them.

In DLAs, it’s vital that learners understand they are applying for a dual opportunity: a job and a place in a degree programme. This is often unfamiliar territory, particularly for school leavers, career changers, or those from equity groups who may not have had exposure to apprenticeship models that combine degree-level study with employment. Advertising academic and job-related entry requirements separately can lead to misunderstandings as candidates may assume they only need to meet one set of criteria, or may be unaware of the full scope of the commitment involved. Joint or co-branded advertising helps ensure learners see the apprenticeship as a single, integrated pathway, rather than two separate hurdles.

A unified or coordinated application process is a key enabler of learner-friendly DLA admissions. The traditional approach, where learners apply separately to an employer for a job and to a TEO for a place in a programme, risks duplication, confusion, and administrative inefficiency. It can also slow down the time it takes for an apprentice to begin work or study, particularly if one application stream progresses faster than the other. For DLAs, where time-sensitive recruitment may coincide with semester or funding deadlines, a single entry point or tightly coordinated dual entry system is essential.

Good practice involves the use of combined vacancy listings or promotional materials that clearly outline the dual nature of the opportunity, including timelines, expectations, and support available. For example, a civil engineering DLA opportunity might include information on the required NCEA Level 3 maths credits or equivalent, as well as details about the job role, hours, and pay. This approach has been used successfully in the UK’s national apprenticeship portal, where vacancies list both employer and university requirements. In New Zealand there might be a case for a coordinated platform managed by a TEO or intermediary organisation to showcase available DLA roles, reducing search costs for learners and ensuring messages are accurate, consistent, and aligned with both parties’ needs.

Shared screening tools and coordinated interviews can be an important feature of high-functioning DLA admissions processes. Because candidates must satisfy both employment suitability and academic preparedness, it makes sense for employers and TEOs to combine efforts where possible. Fragmented interview processes can create unnecessary pressure on learners requiring them to attend separate interviews or submit duplicate information and may lead to inconsistent or contradictory assessments. For example, an employer might prioritise interpersonal skills while the TEO is assessing for academic readiness, without sharing these insights or aligning criteria.

Collaborative approaches could include joint interview panels, shared aptitude or diagnostic tests, and the use of structured selection rubrics that reflect both workplace competencies and academic potential. Some international models (like the Manchester Metropolitan University Assessment Centre or in the context of more traditional apprenticeships the Passgenaue Besetzung in Germany) have formalised these practices, with employers and providers co-developing interview scripts or assessment centre activities. South Australia’s pilot degree apprenticeships in engineering use a group training organisation to manage a single-entry process for multiple employers and the university.

Recognition of prior learning (RPL), recognition of current competency (RCC) and diagnostic assessments are critical tools for broadening access to DLAs particularly for experienced workers, career changers, or others who lack formal academic qualifications. DLAs offer a pathway into degree-level study that values real-world experience and practical capability. Without alternative entry mechanisms, however, applicants with strong skills but unconventional educational backgrounds may be excluded or discouraged. This undermines equity goals and reduces the talent pipeline for industries already facing skills shortages.

Assessing whether a candidate has existing competencies, prior learning or specific development needs are commonly used by TEOs in New Zealand to assess whether a candidate has the foundational skills to succeed in the programme, even if they do not hold standard entrance qualifications like NCEA University Entrance. These assessments can identify gaps that may be addressed through bridging programmes or concurrent learning support. For example, an adult apprentice with a Level 4 trades qualification and ten years’ industry experience may need to complete a short math refresher to meet the demands of an engineering degree. Well-structured RPL/RCC systems also require collaboration with employers, who can verify competencies and provide evidence of workplace learning. Embedding these tools into the admissions process makes DLAs more inclusive, responsive, and aligned with the principle of recognising learning wherever and however it occurs.

Closing the loop with employers about the results of these assessments is critical because it ensures that all parties have a shared understanding of the apprentice’s readiness and any areas that may require additional support. Employers may assume that their selected candidate is “study-ready” based on workplace performance, but diagnostic assessments may reveal gaps in academic writing, mathematics, or digital literacy that need to be addressed for success at degree level. Providing employers with this feedback allows them to make informed decisions such as adjusting work duties during study periods, offering additional mentoring, or contributing to the cost of bridging programmes.

It also reinforces the collaborative nature of the apprenticeship model. When TEOs share diagnostic or RPL/RCC outcomes with employers, it supports better alignment between on-the-job training and off-the-job learning. For example, if an assessment shows that an apprentice struggles with report writing, the employer might assign tasks at work that provide practice with documentation or written communication. Conversely, strengths identified through these assessments can be built upon in the workplace. This feedback loop helps tailor the learning journey to the apprentice’s actual needs, increasing retention and completion rates and strengthening the partnership between education and employment from the outset.

Internationally, more formal and nationally recognised versions of these assessments include the Validation des Acquis de l’Expérience which allows the award of a qualification in full or in part on the basis of a portfolio of work experience only, or can be used to produce a personalised action plan to address any gaps.