Compare the application gate, the official location of programme-specific rules, the scope of the summary, and any conflict or omission. Chevening explicitly says eligibility criteria must be met before applying, while Erasmus+ states that each master’s website contains the course details, participating universities, entry requirements, and application steps. A directory summary should therefore be checked against those underlying materials rather than treated as a substitute for them.
What to compare
| Comparison point | What to inspect | What the cited sources establish |
|---|---|---|
| Application gate | Whether the summary says that eligibility must be established before applying, rather than presenting it as a general preference | Chevening states: “You must meet our eligibility criteria to apply for a Chevening Scholarship.” |
| Responsible source | Whether the summary directs readers to the relevant funder or master’s website for detailed rules | Erasmus+ states that each master’s website contains the relevant details. |
| Course scope | Whether the summary identifies the course of study being described | Erasmus+ includes the course of study among the details available on each master’s website. |
| Participating institutions | Whether the summary corresponds to the stated list of participating universities | Erasmus+ says that each master’s website provides this list. |
| Entry requirements | Whether the summary includes the programme’s actual entry requirements or only gives a general description | Erasmus+ confirms that entry requirements are listed on each master’s website, but the cited statement does not specify what those requirements are. |
| Application steps | Whether the summary reflects the complete application process described by the programme | Erasmus+ states that each master’s website contains all application steps. |
| Conflicts and omissions | Whether the directory adds, removes, generalizes, or changes a condition found in the official material | Neither cited statement evaluates the accuracy of a directory summary, so any discrepancy requires direct verification. |
How to perform the check
The comparison can be made in four steps:
- Record the directory summary. Separate its statements about eligibility, the course, participating universities, and the application process.
- Check the named funder’s material. For Chevening, compare the summary with the explicit requirement that eligibility criteria must be met before applying.
- Check the exact master’s website for an Erasmus+ programme. Compare the directory entry with the course of study, participating universities, entry requirements, and application steps stated there.
- Mark every difference. Matching wording is stronger evidence than a broadly similar description. A missing condition, changed scope, or unexplained conflict should remain unresolved until the relevant official material confirms it.
A shorter summary may leave out a condition even when its general conclusion appears correct. When that happens, the summary should not be used to infer that the omitted condition does not apply.
What the reader must still confirm
The exact programme remains important because Erasmus+ places the detailed requirements on each master’s website. The reader must confirm the entry requirements and application steps for the specific course rather than relying on a directory-level description.
The cited statements do not provide a deadline, fee, award amount, or programme-specific eligibility threshold. Those details must not be inferred from a directory summary or from this guide; they require confirmation in the relevant current official material.