Why do aggregators get cited instead of us?

Because they state the facts plainly in one place, which is what a model needs. The remedy is to publish the same facts at least as clearly, not to try to outrank the aggregator on its own format.

Should we optimise for students or for parents?

Write the facts once and plainly, and both are served. The audience question matters for tone and channel, not for whether the fee is on the page.

Does this apply to short courses and bootcamps?

More so, because the buyer is comparing several providers quickly on price, duration and outcome. Those three facts, stated clearly and dated, do most of the work.

For education

AEO for education and course providers

Applicants ask assistants what it costs, who gets in and what happens afterwards. Those three facts are scattered across most institutional websites, if they are published at all.

The short answer

For education, answer engine optimisation means publishing total cost, entry requirements and outcomes as plain, dated facts per programme. Trackers consistently report education among the categories with the highest automated answer coverage, and those answers are assembled from whichever source states the numbers most clearly.

What ranked on 23 September 2026: Education sits near the top of published AI Overview coverage tables. In practice the answers are assembled from aggregator sites and course directories, which restate institutional facts more plainly than the institutions do.

What is different about education buying

The decision is high value, slow, and made by someone comparing a small number of options on facts that institutions publish inconsistently.

Total cost is rarely stated. Per-term figures, separate fee schedules and unstated extras make the one number an applicant wants impossible to assemble
Entry requirements vary by cohort and country, and a page that omits which cohort it describes is wrong for most readers
Outcomes are the second question: what graduates do, what they earn, what proportion complete
Deadlines and intakes date badly, and a stale one is quoted as fact for months
Aggregators restate your programme more plainly than you do, which is exactly why they get cited instead of you

Things that sound right and are not

ClaimFees are available on request.
It removes you from every cost question in the category, which is the most common question applicants ask.
ClaimOur prospectus covers all of this.
A downloadable file is a poor source. If it matters, it needs to be text on a page.
ClaimWe publish outcomes in the annual report.
True and unhelpful. The figure belongs on the programme page, dated, next to the fee.

Where to start

01Publish a total programme cost per intake, in text, including what is not included.
02State entry requirements per cohort and per country, with the year attached.
03Put outcome data on the programme page rather than in a report, and date it.
04Keep deadlines current or remove them, because a stale deadline is worse than none.
05Compare how the main course aggregators describe your programme with how you do, and fix whichever version is wrong.

Questions

Why do aggregators get cited instead of us?: Because they state the facts plainly in one place, which is what a model needs. The remedy is to publish the same facts at least as clearly, not to try to outrank the aggregator on its own format.
Should we optimise for students or for parents?: Write the facts once and plainly, and both are served. The audience question matters for tone and channel, not for whether the fee is on the page.
Does this apply to short courses and bootcamps?: More so, because the buyer is comparing several providers quickly on price, duration and outcome. Those three facts, stated clearly and dated, do most of the work.

Doing this yourself and want a second opinion on what the assistants say about you? Tell me what you are seeing, or read the AEO Playbook for the whole framework.