Only in part. An applicant can compare their circumstances with a funding programme’s original eligibility criteria, but that comparison does not establish an official applicant-status decision. Chevening states that its eligibility criteria must be met before applying, while the Fulbright Program states that eligibility varies by country and specific programme.
What the original criteria establish
| Programme | Criterion-level requirement | Individual-status limit |
|---|---|---|
| Chevening | Its eligibility criteria must be met before applying. | The cited statement does not determine whether a particular applicant meets every current criterion. |
| Fulbright Program | Eligibility varies by country and the specific programme. | The relevant country and programme must be identified before the applicable requirements can be checked. |
These statements provide benchmarks for an eligibility check. They do not confirm an individual’s eligibility, application stage, or outcome.
How to conduct the check
- Consult the original source for the relevant funding programme.
- Identify the applicable country and programme where the rules vary.
- Compare the applicant’s circumstances with each current eligibility criterion.
- Mark any criterion that is clearly met, not met, or still unclear.
- Keep unclear points unresolved rather than assuming that a general statement establishes compliance.
What the applicant must still confirm
A self-assessment against published criteria is not the same as an official status determination. Any claim that an applicant has been verified requires separate evidence from the relevant programme. The two cited statements do not provide that individual confirmation, and they should not be used to infer an eligibility decision that they do not state.