College Major Matcher logoCollege Major Matcher

Editorial Masthead

Student and advisor feedback loops

We regularly invite students, recent grads, and advising professionals to comment on our drafts. When they tell us something feels unrealistic, confusing, or overly optimistic, we update the content. That ongoing loop helps us keep examples grounded in real campus experiences instead of outdated stereotypes about certain majors.

How we handle expertise and lived experience

Our contributors bring a mix of academic advising, classroom teaching, industry practice, and recent student experience. We treat that lived experience as a complement to established frameworks, not a replacement. When someone writes about a path they have personally walked, we still cross‑check claims against program requirements and reputable career data.

This blend of perspectives is meant to keep the tone grounded and practical: you should feel like you are hearing from people who know the systems and remember what it felt like to navigate them for the first time.

Internal review before publishing guidance

Before publishing new articles or updating major descriptions, we ask at least one other team member to review the draft for clarity, tone, and fairness. When possible, we also ask someone with recent student experience in the relevant area to flag parts that feel unrealistic or incomplete.

Recognizing many versions of success

People contribute to their communities in countless ways, not just through a short list of prestigious job titles. When we choose examples and stories, we look for a mix of outcomes so that you can see valid futures that do and do not match traditional expectations.

How reader feedback shapes future updates

When many readers ask similar questions or point out the same confusing section, we treat that as a signal to revisit our explanations. Over time, this feedback loop makes the site clearer and more aligned with what students actually need.