This page explains how EduRanked builds university admissions and tuition guides: which sources we prefer, how we structure articles, how we handle uncertainty, and what we refuse to invent. Transparency here is part of E-E-A-T — readers should be able to audit our claims.
Research goals
Each guide should help a reader complete a decision loop: understand the school and programs, map admissions steps, estimate costs, spot myths, and leave with concrete next actions plus primary links. We optimize for usefulness under real search intent, not for stuffing keywords or copying brochure tone.
Primary source hierarchy
- Official university pages — admissions, tuition/fees, registrar, program calendars, and international applicant sections.
- Government and planning resources — provincial or national education pages that define funding, credential recognition, or public reporting.
- Reputable news — attributed context only (campus news, policy changes), never as the sole source for a current fee table.
- Secondary directories and blogs — used cautiously, if at all; never preferred over official pages for money or eligibility claims.
During editing we remove marketing fluff, broken or off-topic PDFs, and duplicate links so the Sources list stays scannable.
How a typical guide is structured
Most school articles follow a practical outline:
- What the university is and who it tends to fit
- Programs and academic context relevant to applicants
- Admissions pathways, documents, and timelines
- Tuition, fees, scholarships, and aid rules with verification notes
- Comparisons or alternatives when helpful
- Myths vs facts applicants commonly get wrong
- Step-by-step next actions
- FAQ answering residual search questions
- Sources with outbound links
Not every heading appears in every article. Thin or speculative sections are cut rather than padded.
Numbers, dates, and labels
When we cite tuition, deposits, or deadlines, we aim to keep the number near a citation and remind readers to re-check the official page before acting. If a school publishes ranges by faculty, we say so. If a figure is historical or approximate, we label it. We do not invent acceptance rates or fabricate ranking positions.
Rankings policy
Rankings can inform shortlists but do not replace program fit, cost, or eligibility. When rankings are mentioned, we name the source and year where available and explain limitations. We avoid presenting a single rank as a verdict.
Updates and reader corrections
Guides are refreshed when we republish, when major policy changes are known, or when readers flag errors. To report a problem, use Contact with the URL, incorrect line, and official source. See also our Editorial Guidelines.
What we do not do
- Invent statistics or “guaranteed” outcomes
- Present outdated third-party directories as current policy
- Sell editorial recommendations
- Process applications or act as an agent
How you should use our Sources section
Open the official links before you budget or submit. If the school page disagrees with our article, trust the school page and tell us. That feedback loop is how EduRanked stays useful across application cycles.
Quality checks before publish
Before a guide goes live, editors check that money and deadline claims point to primary URLs, that FAQ answers match the body (no contradictions), that Sources are not padded with junk directories, and that myth sections do not invent straw-man claims. If a section cannot be sourced, it is cut. Padding to hit a word count is not part of the methodology — clarity is.
Related reading: About Us, Disclaimer, Free Resources, Editorial Guidelines.