Translate each course into the same five questions.
Country labels are too broad. Build one comparison row per course using the current official course page, module catalogue and admissions page. If an answer is unclear, record it as a question for the institution instead of guessing.
| Question | Evidence to record |
|---|---|
| What will the student actually study? | Required modules, optional modules and progression rules |
| How will learning be assessed? | Exams, coursework, laboratories, performances, projects and group work |
| How much can the course change? | Major declaration, transfers, electives, joint degrees and exit awards |
| What must already be known? | Subject prerequisites, portfolios, auditions, tests and language evidence |
| What is the full commitment? | Duration, total cost, placement years, travel and professional requirements |
Compare the first year and the final year.
The first year reveals breadth, prerequisites and transition. The final year reveals the level of specialisation and the work a student must produce. Reading both prevents a glossy course summary from hiding the actual intellectual path.
Separate educational fit from country preference.
A student may prefer a city or country while preferring the structure of a course elsewhere. Keep those judgments in separate columns. That makes the trade-off visible instead of allowing location to decide the academic question silently.
Use a decision sentence, not a score alone.
End each comparison with one sentence: “This course is stronger for this student because…” A weighted score can organise the evidence, but the sentence tests whether the family can explain the choice without relying on a ranking.