CAO Course Choice Excel - Free Template

1. Open the Dashboard and replace the sample applicant name, points, preferred study location and maximum annual budget with the applicant's details.
2. Go to Course Comparison and review the sample rows. Replace them with the institution, course code, title, NFQ level, location and duration for the courses being considered.
3. Enter the indicative 2026 points and any points change from the source you are using. Treat these figures as planning estimates, not guaranteed CAO outcomes.
4. Choose Yes or No for minimum subject requirements, then enter annual fees, estimated annual living costs and a short commute or accommodation note.
5. Give each course a Course Interest Rating and Career Fit Rating from 1 to 5. Leave calculated columns such as Points Buffer, Total Estimated Annual Cost, Overall Score and Suitable? intact.
6. Return to the Dashboard to review the counts, averages, top-scoring course, total estimated cost and the three charts. Use the Instructions sheet when checking the workbook workflow.
7. Before making a CAO decision, verify current course points, restricted-course requirements, fees, accommodation, SUSI information and official CAO dates directly with the relevant sources.

A sixth-year student and parent will usually use this spreadsheet during course research, again after mock results and once final preferences are being discussed. A guidance counsellor may also use it to make a long list more manageable, while a mature applicant can use the same structure to compare location, course duration and likely living costs.

Putting the shortlist in one place

Suppose an applicant has 500 points and is comparing Trinity Computer Science at 566 indicative points, UCD Commerce at 520 and UCC Engineering at 512. The Course Comparison sheet records the course codes, NFQ level, four-year duration, location and points change instead of leaving the details scattered across screenshots.

In the sample data, Trinity has €3,500 annual fees and €15,000 estimated living costs, giving a calculated annual cost of €18,500. UCC has the same sample fees but €11,500 living costs, giving €15,000. That difference matters when a Dublin accommodation plan is compared with shared accommodation in Cork.

Using the three workbook sheets

Image 1 shows Course Comparison: the input columns are followed by calculated points, cost and suitability fields. Image 2 shows the Dashboard, where the applicant's points, preferred location and budget feed the summary. Image 3 shows Instructions, including the warning that points and costs are planning estimates.

The Dashboard can report how many courses have been entered, how many are suitable, the average indicative points and the number within budget. It is a planning aid, not a replacement for checking each institution's official entry conditions.

CAO points are not fixed in advance. The workbook labels its points as indicative 2026 planning estimates, so a figure such as 512 or 566 must be checked against the current CAO and institution information before preferences are submitted.

Requirements beyond points

The Yes or No field for minimum subject requirements is deliberately separate from points. A course may show a positive points buffer but still need a particular grade, portfolio, audition, interview, language subject or other additional requirement. Marking requirements Yes without checking the official course page can produce a misleading Suitable? result.

NFQ level also needs to be understood. The workbook accepts levels 6, 7 and 8; Level 8 generally refers to an honours bachelor degree, while Level 6 and Level 7 represent different higher-education routes. Course duration, progression options and award type should be checked with the institution rather than inferred from the level alone.

Fees, support and personal data

Fees and living costs are estimates entered by the user. For example, a €3,500 fee plus €15,000 living-cost estimate produces €18,500 per year, but accommodation availability and transport can change the real figure substantially. Check the institution, SUSI and relevant Revenue information where applicable.

The Instructions sheet also warns against storing PPS numbers or unnecessary personal data. That is a sensible GDPR approach: this workbook needs an applicant name and planning information, not a PPS number. Confirm the current CAO application deadline, late arrangements and Change of Mind period directly on the official CAO website.

The most expensive mistake is treating an indicative points figure as a promise. An applicant with 500 points comparing a course at 512 has a calculated buffer of -12, but that number does not predict the final points. Conversely, a positive buffer does not overcome an unmet subject requirement.

Costs that look comparable but are not

A Dublin course recorded at €18,500 annual cost and a Cork course recorded at €15,000 may appear €3,500 apart, but the estimates may use different accommodation assumptions. One family may have a student room included; another may assume commuting. If the cost basis is not written in the Commute / Accommodation column, the Dashboard's average can create false precision.

The workbook calculates annual cost as fees plus living costs, not a complete four-year funding plan. It does not calculate grants, travel fares, deposits, inflation or household contributions. I would rather see a clearly labelled €15,000 estimate with a note saying shared accommodation than a precise-looking figure with no explanation.

Ratings can distort the ranking

Overall Score gives 40% weight to Course Interest Rating, 40% to Career Fit Rating and 20% to whether the points buffer is non-negative. A course rated 5 for interest and 5 for career fit receives a strong score even if its points position needs careful review. That is useful for discussion, but it is not an admissions probability.

Another common error is overwriting formula columns while editing rows. If Points Buffer or Suitable? is replaced with typed text, the Dashboard may no longer reflect the comparison accurately. Keep the calculated columns intact and change only the intended input cells.

This workbook works best as a short weekly review rather than a once-off download in September. Set aside 20 minutes after a school guidance meeting or mock-exam update: check one or two official course pages, update points or requirements, then review the Dashboard.

A simple review sequence

• Update applicant points when a meaningful result changes the planning estimate.
• Check one institution's requirements and record the source or a concise note in the relevant row.
• Review accommodation and commuting assumptions before comparing annual costs.
• Re-score interest and career fit only after discussing what the course actually involves.

Use the Dashboard's preferred location and maximum annual budget as discussion filters, not automatic decisions. For example, setting a €21,000 budget can count courses at or below that amount, while the student may still choose a higher-cost course after reviewing accommodation or family support.

When the spreadsheet is no longer enough

For one applicant and perhaps 20 to 40 researched courses, this format is practical. If a school is maintaining hundreds of applicants, several staff members are editing simultaneously or every figure needs a source history, move to a controlled database or school guidance system with user permissions and version history.

Keep a dated copy before major changes and do not store unnecessary sensitive information. The workbook has prepared rows through row 101, so adding more courses means extending formulas and validation carefully rather than assuming the Dashboard will automatically include new rows beyond its designed range.