The Scholarship Shortlist
A school must award one scholarship. Four students are shortlisted. Priya has the highest test score (98) but missed two terms last year due to illness. Jonah has a score of 91 and leads three clubs but has a disciplinary warning for a minor uniform breach. Mei has a score of 94, strong references and no issues, but her family earns too much to qualify for the needs-based part of the fund. Sam has a score of 88, volunteers weekly and is the first in his family to apply. The rules say the award is for 'academic merit and contribution to the school community' and must consider 'equity of access'.
1. Explain how the stated criteria pull in different directions and why a simple test-score ranking is inadequate.
Read the worked answer
Academic merit favours Priya (98) and Mei (94). Contribution to community favours Jonah (three clubs) and Sam (weekly volunteering). Equity of access favours Sam (first in family) and Priya (illness affected her schooling), and may count against Mei because her family does not need the needs-based support.
A simple test-score ranking ignores contribution and equity entirely, so it fails two of the three stated criteria. It also treats the 98 as a clean measure when Priya's two missed terms mean her score may understate her ability, or may reflect tutoring rather than merit. The criteria are deliberately broad, so the decision needs a reasoned weighing of all three, not a single number.
2. Recommend a winner and justify your choice against the criteria, acknowledging the strongest objection.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: Sam.
- Merit: 88 is solid, though below Priya and Mei.
- Contribution: weekly volunteering is sustained service, comparable to Jonah's clubs.
- Equity: first in family directly matches the equity-of-access rule.
Strongest objection: Sam has the lowest score, so awarding the scholarship could look like ignoring academic merit. The answer is that merit is one of three criteria, and Sam's gap (6 points below Mei) is modest compared with his strength on the other two.
Why not the others: Priya's illness is not her fault, but the missed terms make her current performance harder to judge; she could be supported through a different fund. Jonah's disciplinary warning is minor but counts against community contribution. Mei is strong but the equity rule points elsewhere.
A defensible answer states the ranking and the trade-off openly rather than pretending there is no conflict.