SUPPORTING DECISIONS
Choice and Tendency Tools
A centre for comparison, question generation, cost and readiness checks without automating the school or subject decision.
A preference tool should not be a magic test that directs a learner to one school or career. A good tool makes criteria visible, exposes trade-offs, widens the options to research and clearly states that it does not replace official application systems.
Where can you go from here?
Education Glossary
Separate terms such as OBP, ATP, AMP, MTOK, TYT, AYT, faculty and vocational school.
Open guide → 02Education Roadmap
Place the pages recommended by the tool within the full education journey.
Open guide → 03Cost Check
Include time, travel, accommodation and equipment, not just fees.
Open guide → 04Compare with Official Results
Verify every tool output against current official guides and systems.
Open guide →Planned tool family
- Preschool choice assistant
- Primary and middle-school comparator
- High-school type tendency tool
- LGS preference-list preparation helper
- Vocational-field tendency tool
- University subject exploration tool
- University and programme comparator
- School-achievement and cost calculators
- Career-route map
Results the tools will not provide
The tools will not claim guaranteed placement, a fixed career fit, a single best school or a salary guarantee. Personal inputs will not be sent to a server; calculations will be performed in the browser wherever possible.
The live route finder
The route finder on this page recommends live guides based on the stage of education and type of decision. Later phases will add comparison criteria, browser-based favourites, printable checklists and current annual data.
Questions that arise while deciding
These answers provide general guidance; check the official document for the relevant year for rules that can change.
01Can a preference tool make the decision?
No. It organises criteria, shows related options and generates research questions. The user remains responsible for the decision.
02Are scores or grades stored?
Planned tools will work in the browser wherever possible and avoid sending personal data to a server. Every tool should explain its data use.
03Is a tendency result a talent test?
No. It is a current summary of stated interests and working preferences, not a diagnosis, certificate or fixed career result.
04Can an LGS tool predict placement?
It may show historical scenarios but cannot guarantee a result. Quotas and applicant preferences change.
05Why should cost tools use ranges?
Fees and living costs change. Scenarios with different increases are more honest than one fixed number.
06How should tool results be verified?
Any suggested school, programme or term should be checked against current official sources and the institution’s own website.
07Can a choice tool give a certain outcome?
No. It organises criteria, compares options and shows research questions. Quotas, human behaviour and institutional conditions change, so it cannot guarantee placement or success.
08Should the tools store personal data?
Calculations that do not need accounts should run in the browser, without sending names, addresses, schools or health data. Local favourites should be explained and removable.
09Why can a calculator be approximate?
Official systems may use rounding, standardisation, coefficients and special conditions. The tool should teach the formula and compare scenarios, not replace the official result.
10Why must a recommendation be explained?
Users need to see which inputs affected the output. Unexplained scoring creates false certainty, so the result should show criteria, missing data and alternatives.
Which guide should you start with?
This tool does not make a decision; it recommends live centres based on the stage and decision type.
Where should you verify the information?
Rota Maarif school information and preference platform
Open official source ↗e-Devlet / MEBAddress-based school registration lookup
Open official source ↗YÖKYÖK Atlas
Open official source ↗Examination, registration, preference, quota, scholarship and curriculum rules can change. Open the current official document for the relevant academic year before acting.
Choice and Tendency Tools: turn information into a decision
Completing this page does not mean that every decision about choice and tendency tools is settled. To make the information usable, the learner should bring personal circumstances and current official evidence into one decision file. The plan below turns general guidance into observable evidence, uncertainty into a verification question and a first reading into a record that can be revisited.
Begin by examining “Where can you go from here?” beside “Education Glossary”. For each heading, record one real situation, one unknown and one question to verify through a reliable source. Then test the suggestion under “Education Roadmap” on a small scale. Do not record only success or failure; note time used, support needed, the error encountered and what would change in a second attempt.
The third layer is comparison. Evaluate the focus “Cost Check” against at least two alternatives using the same criteria. Criteria should not be the title, institution name or first impression alone; use everyday practice, accessibility, time and cost, safety, source freshness and the learner’s own view. Do not assign a guessed score to missing information. Mark it clearly as “to be verified” and name the responsible source.
For dates, conditions, fees, quotas, rules or application details that can change, do not rely only on the page’s review date. Open the primary official notice, record its date and scope, and preserve the earlier value in a version history when information changes. This makes it possible to see which decision relied on which evidence at a particular time.
The final step belongs to the learner. Answer: what did I understand, what remains doubtful, what support do I need and what is my next small action? Keep parent or teacher observations in a separate row rather than replacing the learner’s view. Reopen the same record after one week or one month and compare changed evidence with needs that remain.
| Focus | Evidence to produce | Closing question |
|---|---|---|
| Where can you go from here? | One real situation + one verification question | What changes in my own context? |
| Education Glossary | Source, date and scope record | Is the source current and direct? |
| Education Roadmap | Small trial + error log | What will change in version two? |
| Cost Check | Two-alternative comparison | Which difference genuinely affects the decision? |
Suggested return: a short check seven days after the first record; whenever an official change is published; and a full reread before an important decision.