ChatGPT
Claude
Perplexity
Gemini
GrokAn AI assistant compares courses using what it can find and cross-check
When a Year 12 student asks an AI assistant to compare three courses, the answer is assembled from public pages: the course page, the national register, government comparison tools, review sites and rankings. A fact that is vague, undated or contradicted elsewhere gets dropped, distorted or replaced by a third party's version.
We found no public study measuring how many Australian applicants compare courses this way. The research we located covers enrolled students, not prospective applicants, so this article uses no usage statistic. It starts from something checkable, how these systems pick sources.
Google states in its AI features documentation that its AI features choose supporting pages while generating a response, and that no special optimisation is required. The lever is the quality and verifiability of your course pages.
This builds on our articles on AI recommendation criteria and programme page markup. For the wider picture, see our guide to recruiting more students.
What applicants actually ask when they compare
Admission runs through state-based tertiary admission centres for many school leavers, alongside direct applications. The questions below concern facts anyone can check.
| Applicant's question | Fact to publish on the course page | Where it can be verified |
|---|---|---|
| Is the provider registered and is the course accredited? | Provider category, registration, course accreditation status | TEQSA National Register |
| What do graduates say about the course? | Reference to national survey results, year, field of study | QILT |
| What ATAR or entry pathway do I need? | Lowest selection rank for the last intake with year, adjustment factors, alternative pathways | Course page, admission centre listing |
| What will it cost? | Fee type (Commonwealth supported or full fee), fees per year, FEE-HELP or HECS-HELP eligibility, date updated | Fees page, Study Assist |
| Can I compare it with other courses? | Official course identifier | Course Seeker |
| Where and when does it start? | Campus or online, intake periods, trimester or semester | Course page |
A page that answers these six lines in plain text, not buried in a PDF course guide, is easier to quote accurately than most competitors' pages.
Make each course page a record that can be checked
A verifiable page states precise facts, names its source and shows when it was last reviewed.
- One course name everywhere. Course page, admission centre listing, course guide and Course Seeker entry should use the same name and code.
- Status in plain words. Say whether the provider is a university, a university college or another registered higher education provider, and do not imply a status you do not hold.
- Dated fees. State fees per year, the fee type and the loan scheme eligibility. Fee settings change, so an undated figure goes wrong silently.
- Sourced outcomes. Any employment or satisfaction figure should name the survey, year and population, with a link. Consumer law applies to course marketing, as the ACCC explains.
- A visible review date, changed only when the content really changes.
Point to official sources instead of replacing them
The strongest trust signal is a link to the official source. The TEQSA register lists registered providers and accredited courses, and QILT publishes national student and graduate survey results. Link to them where you make a claim about status or quality.
These links serve two audiences. The applicant checks in one click. The assistant gets a second source that confirms, or contradicts, your page. If it contradicts, you want to find out before it does.
Avoid loose wording such as "fully accredited" when the status is more specific. Write exactly what the register says.
Align the website, listings and documents
An assistant also reads listings, forums and PDFs. Run a simple inventory for each course:
- the course page and handbook entry;
- the admission centre listing for each state you recruit from;
- the Course Seeker entry;
- the course guide PDF and open day pages;
- your Google business profile and social pages.
Give each sensitive field (name, duration, fees, selection rank, intake) a named owner. The usual cause of contradictions is a course guide left on last year's version.
Structured data helps machines read, it does not guarantee citation
Google documents Course structured data, and the vocabulary is defined at schema.org/Course. The markup must match what is visible on the page. No official source promises that markup leads to an AI citation. Treat it as good housekeeping.
Test what assistants say about you, on a schedule
Each semester, put the same prompts to several assistants and note the discrepancies.
| Sample prompt | What you check | Action if confirmed |
|---|---|---|
| "Compare [course] at [university] and [rival]" | Name, duration, status | Fix your page or the third-party source |
| "What are the fees for [course]?" | Figure, fee type and year quoted | Date and detail the fees page |
| "What ATAR do I need for [course]?" | Selection rank and year | Publish the figure with its intake year |
| "Is [provider] TEQSA registered?" | Status wording | Cite the national register |
Keep the answers and the test date. Results vary from session to session, so a test is an alert, not a statistical measure. See also our piece on Gen Z AI school search.
When an assistant gets a fact wrong
Start by finding where the wrong fact came from. Ask the assistant for its sources, then open them. Often the error sits on a third-party listing, an old course guide or a cached page rather than on your current course page.
Fix the source you control first, then update your page so the correct fact is easy to find and dated. For listings you do not control, such as a directory or an admission centre entry, contact the publisher with the corrected detail. Record what you changed and retest at the next cycle.
What an on-site agent adds, and what stays with the institution
Skolbot Chat is an agent installed on the institution's website. It answers applicants from content the institution has published, qualifies the enquiry, offers an appointment or open day and passes the conversation to the team and the CRM. It supports advisers rather than replacing them.
An agent can only answer correctly if the pages are correct. Recurring questions without a clear answer on your site show which pages to fix. Nothing guarantees that it changes what an external assistant says about you. Checking the facts remains the institution's responsibility. For applicant information, the OAIC explains obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.
