Methodology
Where our admissions data comes from.
We are not an admissions office, and nothing here is a decision. This page explains what we hold, where it came from, and where it stops being reliable.
Catalogue last refreshed 13 August 2026
What we hold
Institutions, their colleges and faculties, the programmes they run, the level of each one, the entry requirements they publish, and their application windows. Every figure originates with the institution that set it — published in their own admissions material. We mirror it. We do not estimate a cut-off, and we do not fill a gap with a number from a comparable programme.
Why we show a band, not a number
This is the part most often got wrong, including by sites that publish the figure with confidence. A published cut-off is usually not a competitive score. For most programmes in Ghana it is the minimum entry requirement for the level, written as the worst aggregate that still qualifies — the equivalent of saying "you need six credit passes."
Printed beside a single programme that reads as a fact. Printed across a whole institution it becomes actively misleading, because it tells a student they must compete for a number that in truth admits everybody who meets the basic requirement. Only a handful of Ghanaian institutions publish genuinely competitive cut-offs at all, and a further set of entries hold placeholder values that are not possible aggregates.
So we sort each programme into how selective it actually is, and say that instead. It is the more honest summary, and it is the one you can act on.
How a verdict is reached
An aggregate on its own does not decide anything. A check reads the actual requirements: which core subjects a programme demands, which electives it will accept, whether your combination is one the college permits, and how your sittings combine. That is why a check can tell you that you missed a programme on a single elective while your aggregate was never the problem.
What we do not publish
We do not publish our source list, the exact boundaries between selectivity bands, or the subject-matching rules themselves. Assembling and maintaining that is the work this service is paid for. It is stated here rather than quietly left out, because a methodology page that pretends to full disclosure while omitting the method is worse than one that draws the line and says where.
Where it stops
- Institutions change requirements, sometimes after publishing them. A refreshed catalogue is not a guarantee of a current one.
- Where an institution publishes nothing, we say so rather than infer it. An empty field is an honest answer.
- Meeting a requirement is not an offer. Places are limited and institutions weigh things we cannot see.
- Always confirm against the institution before you pay for an application form.
Found something wrong?
Tell us. Corrections to a requirement, a deadline or a programme that no longer runs are the most useful message we get, and they are applied to the catalogue rather than to one page.