The Scholarship Fund Allocation
A hall at a public university has a 60,000-taka annual welfare fund to help students in financial hardship. The hall provost, a student welfare committee of five, and the hall's accounting officer must decide how to distribute it. Three applicants: Karim needs 40,000 taka to avoid dropping out; Farida needs 25,000 for exam fees and books; and Nasrin needs 15,000 for transport and meals. The fund cannot exceed 60,000 in total. The accounting officer warns that any single award above 30,000 requires special approval that may take two months, risking Karim's withdrawal this term. The committee also suspects one application may be inflated but has no proof.
1. Propose an allocation that keeps within the fund and avoids the approval delay, and justify it.
Read the worked answer
Total need is 40,000 + 25,000 + 15,000 = 80,000, exceeding the 60,000 fund by 20,000, so not everyone can be fully funded. The 30,000 approval threshold means awarding Karim the full 40,000 risks a two-month delay that could cause him to drop out. A workable allocation: Karim 30,000 (the maximum without special approval), Farida 20,000, Nasrin 10,000 - total 60,000. This keeps every award at or below the threshold, avoids delay, and spreads the shortfall proportionally. Karim still faces a 10,000 gap, which the committee can address through an emergency instalment from next year's fund or a referral to a separate hardship scheme, rather than blocking his entire award on a slow approval.
2. How should the committee handle the suspected inflated application without violating fairness?
Read the worked answer
Suspicion without evidence cannot justify reducing an award; punishing on suspicion violates fairness and due process. The committee should apply the same verification standard to all three applicants: request supporting documents (fee receipts, income statements, a statement from a guardian or teacher) and, where needed, a brief interview. If Nasrin's or another application is found inflated, adjust that award on documented grounds; if not, treat all equally. The committee should also record its criteria in advance - need severity, risk of dropping out, and fund limits - so decisions are transparent and reviewable. This protects both the fund and the applicants' dignity, and prevents the suspicion from becoming a de facto penalty.
3. The accounting officer argues the fund should be saved for next year instead. Evaluate this position.
Read the worked answer
Saving the fund trades present harm for uncertain future benefit. Karim faces imminent withdrawal this term; deferring aid converts a solvable problem into a likely dropout, whose cost (lost year, lost fees, lost opportunity) probably exceeds any benefit of a larger next-year fund. The fund's stated purpose is hardship relief, so hoarding it contradicts its mandate unless a larger, more urgent need is documented. A reasonable compromise: allocate most of the 60,000 now to the three applicants and carry forward a small reserve (for example 5,000) for emergencies, while the committee seeks additional sources. The judgement is that immediate, severe, and identifiable need outranks speculative future need - a principle the exam expects students to articulate, not memorise.