Editorial Policy
MatricLink publishes numbers that people make decisions on. A minimum score, an application deadline, a fee. Get one of those wrong and somebody applies to the wrong place, or misses a cut-off, or loses a year. That is a good reason to be explicit about where the numbers come from, how often they are re-checked, and what happens when one turns out to be wrong.
Who writes this
Mohapi, working alone, from KwaZulu-Natal, in whatever time is left over after everything else. There is no editorial team, no fact-checking department, and no institutional backing. That is a real limitation and it is stated here rather than hidden behind a corporate "we". The upside is that every page has one identifiable author who is accountable for it and who answers their own email. Nobody pays for coverage and there are no affiliate arrangements, as set out in the disclaimer.
Where the figures come from
Sources are ranked, and a lower-ranked source never overrides a higher one:
- The institution's own current prospectus or admissions page. This is the only source treated as authoritative for an admission requirement. Where a prospectus PDF and a web page disagree, the more recently dated one wins and the discrepancy gets noted.
- The relevant government body or statutory authority. DHET for institutional registration and the TVET sector, Umalusi and the DBE for the NSC, SAQA for NQF levels, the CHE for programme accreditation, the QCTO for occupational qualifications, NSFAS for funding rules, the CAO for the KwaZulu-Natal application process.
- Direct written confirmation from an admissions office. Used when the published material is genuinely ambiguous. Email only, so there is a record. A phone call is a lead to follow up, not a source to publish.
What is never used as a source
- Other APS calculators and study-advice sites. Most of them copy each other, and a figure that has been copied five times is not five sources.
- Facebook groups, WhatsApp forwards, TikTok, and "my cousin got in with 24".
- Third-party college listing sites and student recruitment agencies, which have a commercial interest in what they publish.
- An older version of MatricLink. Figures are re-checked at source, not carried forward because they were on the page last year.
How unverified figures are handled
This is the rule the site is built on: no number is invented, ever. Not as a placeholder, not as a "reasonable estimate", not to make a page look complete.
Where a figure cannot be confirmed against a source in tier 1 or 2 above, one of three things happens, and never a guess:
- The page says the figure is unconfirmed, in plain language, right next to where the number would have been, and links to the official page where you can check it yourself.
- The figure is left out and the page explains what to look for instead.
- The page is not published until the figure is sourced.
A page that admits it does not know something is more useful than a page that sounds confident and is wrong. Twenty accurate pages beat forty with invented cut-offs.
How the numbers are presented
- Everything carries a date. Every page shows when it was published and when it was last updated. An admission requirement without a year attached to it is close to useless.
- Minimums are labelled as minimums. Meeting a published minimum is not an offer. Competitive programmes select well above theirs, and this site says so rather than implying that clearing a threshold means getting in.
- Institution-wide figures are flagged as simplifications. Most requirements are set per programme. Any single number attached to a whole university is a planning aid, not the actual rule for the course you want.
- Deadlines are marked with the cycle they belong to. A closing date with no year is the most dangerous thing this site could publish.
Review schedule
Different pages go stale at different speeds, so they are not all reviewed on the same clock. This is the intended cadence:
| Page type | Reviewed | Why that often |
|---|---|---|
| Application dates and fees | Twice a year, before applications open and again in October | Moves every cycle and causes the most harm when stale |
| Institution admission requirements | Annually, against the new prospectus | Revised once per intake cycle |
| Funding rules (NSFAS and bursaries) | Annually, when the cycle opens | Income thresholds and rules change yearly |
| Structural explainers (NQF levels, pass types, articulation) | Every two years, or on a policy change | Underlying framework is stable |
| Anything reported as wrong | Immediately | A reported error outranks the schedule |
Honest caveat: this is one person's schedule, not a guarantee. If a page's "last updated" date looks old to you, treat it as old and check the institution directly. That is why the date is on the page.
Reporting an error
Corrections are wanted, not tolerated. If a figure here is wrong, the fastest way to fix it is to say so.
Email mohapileqela@gmail.com with the page address, the wrong text, what it should say, and ideally a link to the official source. The contact page has the full list and the expected response times.
What happens after you report it
- Acknowledged within two working days. You get a reply confirming it is being looked at, even if the fix takes longer.
- Checked at source. A single report is never enough on its own. The figure is verified against the institution's own published material before anything changes, in both directions: a correction is not applied just because someone asserted it.
- Fixed, or explained. If the report is right, the page is corrected and its "last updated" date changes. If the report turns out to be wrong, you get a reply saying so, with the source, because that is more useful to you than silence.
- Anything urgent is pulled first. Where an error could cost someone a deadline or money, the wrong figure is removed immediately, before the correct one has been confirmed. An empty space is safer than a wrong deadline.
- Significant corrections are disclosed. If a figure was materially wrong rather than a typo, the page notes that it was corrected and when. Corrections are not made silently.
Conflicts of interest
There are none to declare. No institution has paid for a mention, no institution has been offered one, and there are no affiliate or referral arrangements on this site.
The only revenue on MatricLink is advertising, which is placed automatically by a third-party network and has no influence over what is written. That network changed in August 2026, from Google AdSense to Monetag. This paragraph previously undertook to disclose such a change here before it appeared anywhere else, so it is recorded here. The privacy policy sets out what the new network collects. Advertising is not carried on this page, or on the privacy policy, terms, disclaimer or contact pages.
Corrections log
Material corrections are recorded here, most recent first.
15 August 2026. Every minimum APS on the site
All 26 public universities and universities of technology were checked against their own published admission requirements. Five were right, twenty were wrong, and one was missing from the site entirely. A 19% hit rate.
The cause is worth stating plainly: those figures had been collected from other websites rather than from the institutions, and the other websites were copying each other. A number repeated five times is not five sources.
The errors fell into three kinds:
- The Life Orientation rule was inverted. TUT, DUT, UNISA, UWC, UFS, UL, MUT, UNIZULU, UNIVEN and CPUT. Some had it counting when it does not, some the reverse, so scores were inflated in one direction and understated in the other.
- The minimum was understated. Fort Hare was listed at 22 against a published 26 or higher. CUT at 20 against 27, where 21 or fewer is an automatic decline. SPU at 22 against 25. UMP at 24, which is its diploma figure while degrees start at 30 and Law at 33. In each case the old number told people they were in range when they were not.
- The unit was wrong. UCT, Stellenbosch, NMU, Rhodes and CPUT were each given an APS. None of them uses one. UCT scores on a Faculty Points Score that differs between its own faculties, Stellenbosch on an average, NMU and Rhodes in percentages, CPUT on its own scale where diploma requirements run into the 30s.
Two further findings sat outside those categories. Wits was listed correctly as counting Life Orientation, but the calculator was comparing it on a 42-point scale when Wits works out of 49. And VUT was absent altogether, so anyone looking for a Vaal Triangle option was shown nothing.
The five that held up were Wits, UJ, UP, UKZN and NWU. Every institution page now carries its own dated note recording what its figure used to say. See the university guides.
7 August 2026. Privacy policy
The previous policy described marks saved in localStorage as being held "temporarily". That was inaccurate. Local storage has no expiry and the entry persists until the user clears it. Corrected, and a retention section added explaining how to remove it. See the privacy policy.
Related: About · Contact · Disclaimer · Terms of Use