Coverage and sourcing
This page is not a list of features. It is an account of what is on this site, where each class of figure came from, what has been left out on purpose, and what is known to be weak.
The reason for publishing it: a student choosing a degree is making a decision worth several years and a good deal of money, usually on numbers found through a search. Knowing how a number was obtained is the only way to judge how much weight it can carry.
What the work involves, the qualification sequence in order, the body that registers practitioners, the limits worth knowing, and what students do when they miss the merit.
Sourcing. Structural facts — degree length, which council registers the profession, which test gates the route. These hold between admission cycles. Where a rule does change between cycles, the text names the body to confirm it with instead of restating a number.
The route from Matric through Intermediate, entry test, degree and licensing to a career endpoint, with every fork shown rather than a single recommended line.
Sourcing. Assembled from the published eligibility rules of the relevant regulators and universities. The forks matter more than the line: most routes have more than one accepted entry point.
Your aggregate under a specific institution’s weighting, with the formula shown in full so you can check it rather than trust it.
Sourcing. Each calculator names its source and the date the weighting was last checked, and says on the page whether that source is the institution’s own published criteria or a secondary report. The two FAST calculators cite FAST’s own eligibility criteria; the others cite secondary sources and say so.
The aggregate of the last candidate admitted to a programme in a past cycle, so a calculated aggregate can be read against what actually happened.
Sourcing. Every figure is taken from the conducting body’s own document and carries a source link and a verification date. Punjab medical and dental figures come from the UHS final college-wise selection lists; UET figures from its published Closing Merit Report; the law figure from the University of the Punjab’s own merit summary. Nothing here comes from an aggregator.
Paper format, section weights, marking, qualifying marks, and the recent rule changes students most often revise from outdated notes.
Sourcing. Structural detail that holds across cycles. Test dates and registration deadlines are deliberately absent — see below.
Some figures are omitted not because they are hard to find, but because publishing them would do more harm than good once they go stale.
These change every cycle and are the fastest thing on a site like this to go stale and quietly mislead someone. Each guide links to the conducting body for dates instead of restating them.
Both move annually and vary by campus and category. A figure that is right for one campus in one year is wrong everywhere else, and there is no way for a reader to tell which they are looking at.
Closing merit is published as history, never as a forecast. Nobody can tell you what a programme will close at this year, and a site that pretends otherwise is guessing with your application.
University rankings in Pakistan are contested and change methodology often. The universities listed on a career page are there to research, not ordered by quality.
Every site like this has gaps. Ours are listed so you can weigh what you read rather than discover the limits after acting on them.
UHS publishes detailed college-wise selection lists, so Punjab medical and dental coverage is strong. Other provinces publish less consistently, and that gap is in the data rather than in the system.
NUST releases merit only as a per-candidate lookup against a registration number. FAST states that cut-offs are determined by the university and does not publish them. Any figure circulating online as their closing merit comes from a private aggregator, not from them — so this site shows none.
The salary range shown on each career guide is an indicative band carried over from the site’s original data. It does not meet the sourcing standard applied to merit figures, and should be read as a rough signal rather than a number to plan around.
Four of the six calculators cite a secondary report rather than the institution’s own notification. Each page says which, and tells you to confirm against the university’s admission policy before relying on the result.
If the model is unavailable, the assistant answers from a built-in set of responses without saying so. Treat its answers as a starting point and verify anything that affects a decision.
Corrections from students and teachers are how this stays accurate. Tell us what is wrong and where you saw it.