Public data is the portion of information anyone can view without an account. Beyond that, a school profile also has content shown only to logged-in users, and content that is not shown externally under any circumstances.
This classification is not a technical matter. It reflects a balance between two things that are both true: learners need enough information to make decisions, and the school has rights over its own information.
This article sets out the three visibility levels, the classification criteria, and who decides which item belongs to which level.
Principle: public by default
The starting point needs to be stated clearly, because it differs from how many data systems operate.
On a school profile, the default state of a piece of information is public. Restricting visibility is the exception and requires a reason.
The reason for this principle lies in the profile’s purpose: to give learners and partners enough verifiable information to make decisions. A profile where most content is restricted would fail to serve that purpose.
This principle also has a consequence for the school: if a piece of information is not to be published, the question to ask is why, rather than defaulting to keeping it confidential.
Level one: public data
This is the largest portion of the profile, comprising information needed for researching and comparing.
Identification section. Official name, address, year founded, type, accreditation status along with the name of the accrediting body.
Training section. List of programmes, level, language of instruction, duration, admission requirements, learning outcomes.
Cost section. Tuition fees with the unit and academic year, mandatory fees, estimated living costs, scholarship information.
Support section. Housing, services for international learners, official contact channels.
Source and verification date for each item above.
The reason the cost section and admission-requirements section must be mandatory public information: these are the two groups of information learners need to decide whether it is worth investing time in applying. Keeping them hidden would lead many people to invest effort only to later discover they are not a fit.
Level two: visible to logged-in users
Some content is shown only to logged-in users, mainly for two reasons.
Reason one: detailed documents the school wants to track who downloads. Such as a full programme syllabus or a capability profile in file form.
Reason two: content intended for a specific group. Such as guidance documents for admission partners, distinct from introductory materials for learners.
Importantly, this level must not be used to hide information that belongs to level one. Tuition fees, admission requirements, and accreditation status cannot be moved to level two.
Creating an account to view this content is free and comes with no conditions.
Level three: not shown externally
Three groups of content belong to this level.
Internal contact information. The address and phone number of individual staff members, as distinct from the school’s official contact channels.
Working notes. Exchanges between the school and the editorial team during the process of building and updating the profile.
Learners’ personal data. No exceptions. A school profile contains information about the educational institution, not information about learners.
The third group is a hard boundary. Even if a school wants to include a former learner’s story in the profile as an illustration, it needs that person’s written consent and should present it in anonymized form.
Who decides which item belongs to which level
The answer differs depending on the category of information.
For items required to be public, the decision belongs to the profile’s design, not to each individual school. If a school does not want to disclose tuition fees, the profile will state clearly that it is not yet published, rather than moving that item to level two.
This approach may seem rigid, but it is necessary: if each school decided for itself what to disclose, comparing profiles would become meaningless.
For optional items, the decision belongs to the school. The school may choose to make it public or restrict it to level two, and may change this at any time.
For the non-visible group, the decision belongs to the data-protection principle and is not negotiable.
When a school has not yet disclosed a required piece of information
This is a common real-world situation, especially for items such as estimated living costs or the post-graduation employment rate.
The way to handle it is to leave it blank and clearly note the status, rather than guessing or borrowing figures from a similar school.
Three commonly used statuses.
Not yet published. The school does not yet have this information in public form.
Being updated. The school has announced a change and the public source is pending an update.
Not applicable. This item does not apply to the school’s type or programmes.
These three statuses are far more honest than a blank field with no explanation, because they tell the reader whether to ask further or not to bother.
Public data and the school’s own interest
There is a view that disclosing a lot of information puts a school at a competitive disadvantage. In reality it is usually the opposite, for three reasons.
Learners will find that information through other means anyway. Either from a less accurate source, or from the account of a former student. The school proactively disclosing it ensures the information that reaches people is correct.
Early disclosure helps filter for the right group. A person who knows the total cost clearly and decides not to apply saves time for both sides. Someone who still applies after knowing everything is someone capable of seeing it through to the end.
A complete profile gets read more. The level of completeness and the verification date affect ranking in search results, because a complete profile is more useful to the reader.
In other words, disclosure is not a concession but a way to attract the right group of learners.
When you need to benchmark education transparency across systems, data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provide comparative context.
Items schools are often hesitant to disclose
The four items below often cause hesitation, and each has its own reason worth considering.
Dropout rate. Many schools worry this figure is unfavorable. But international learners and their families increasingly care about it, and not disclosing it is often interpreted worse than the reality.
A balanced approach is to disclose it with context: the industry figure, the regional figure, and what the school is doing to improve it.
Estimated living costs. The concern is that a high figure will discourage learners. But as noted, families will work it out themselves, and underestimating and finding out late is a far worse situation.
Post-graduation employment rate. This should only be published if there is an actual survey, along with the methodology and response rate. A figure without a clear methodology is easily doubted, and once doubted it does more harm than not having one at all.
Class size. Many schools do not disclose this because the figure fluctuates. The way to handle it is to publish a range, clearly noting that it is a range rather than a fixed number.
The common thread across these four items: the worry about disadvantage is usually larger than the actual impact, while the benefits of transparency accumulate over time.
Changing the visibility level
A school may request to move an optional item between level one and level two at any time, through the profile-edit request channel.
Two notes.
Moving from public to restricted does not erase the history. Information that was once public remains recorded in the change history, because that is a record of what was displayed at a given time.
Changing the level does not apply to items required to be public. If a school wants to stop disclosing tuition fees, the profile will move that item to a not-yet-published status rather than hiding it, and the reader will see that status change.
This approach ensures the reader always knows what information they are missing, rather than assuming the profile is complete.
For content related to degree recognition, the information always belongs to the public level and links directly to the authoritative source, such as the framework of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Who is responsible for accuracy
One point needs to be made clear alongside the visibility-level classification: being public does not mean the platform guarantees accuracy.
The school is responsible for the content of its own information. The platform is responsible for correctly recording the source and verification date, and for presenting it in a consistent structure.
This division explains why every item comes with a source: so the reader can verify it independently rather than having to trust an intermediary.
Summary
A school profile has three visibility levels, with the underlying principle being public by default and restriction being the exception that requires a reason.
The mandatory-public group covers identification, training, cost, and support, because this is the information learners need to decide whether it is worth investing time in applying.
And the one hard boundary is learners’ personal data, which does not appear on a school profile under any circumstances.
Next Steps
Review your school’s profile and list the items currently marked as not yet published.
For each item, ask one question: does the school have this information, and if so, what is the reason it has not been published. Many items are often simply things no one has entered yet, rather than a deliberate decision to keep them confidential.
For items where there truly is a decision to keep them confidential, record the reason internally. This helps a successor understand the context instead of guessing, and also lets the school later check whether that reason still holds once circumstances have changed.
