Allocating a Single Scholarship Slot
A dzongkhag scholarship committee has one fully funded slot for a year-long professional course and three shortlisted candidates. Candidate A scored highest on the written test but comes from the dzongkhag's most advantaged gewog and has family means to self-fund. Candidate B scored second, is from a remote gewog, is the first in her family to reach tertiary study, and has submitted a letter showing she cannot afford the course. Candidate C scored third but has two years of relevant volunteer service and a strong interview. The committee's written criteria list merit first, with 'equity considerations' as a secondary factor but give no weights. Two committee members argue that changing the order would damage the credibility of the merit process; a third argues that a merit-only reading defeats the scheme's purpose. The decision must be minuted and publicly justified.
1. Analyse the tension between the stated criteria and the scheme's purpose, and identify what the committee must clarify before voting.
Read the worked answer
The criteria are internally ambiguous: 'merit first' with 'equity as a secondary factor' does not specify whether equity can override a rank difference or only break ties. That ambiguity, not the candidates' merits, is the real dispute. Before voting, the committee must clarify three things: whether the written test is the sole measure of merit or one component alongside interview and service; whether 'secondary factor' permits override in defined circumstances such as inability to self-fund; and what the scheme's documented purpose is, since a scheme intended to widen access cannot be administered as if it were a pure prize.
Clarifying these points protects credibility better than either side's current position, because a decision made under an unstated rule will look arbitrary however it is minuted.
2. Recommend a decision process and a defensible minute that the committee can publish, explaining how to treat the dissenting members.
Read the worked answer
Process: pause the vote, record the interpretive question, and adopt an explicit rule for this cycle - for example, that where candidates fall within a defined margin on the written test, documented financial need and first-generation status may determine the award. Apply the rule transparently to all three candidates and record each candidate's relevant facts.
On the merits, Candidate A's higher score plus ability to self-fund, Candidate B's access barriers, and Candidate C's service can each be weighed under the adopted rule; the minute should state which facts were decisive.
Dissenting members should have their objection recorded verbatim, not smoothed over. The published minute should state the rule applied, the facts considered, and the reasons, so the outcome is reviewable. This preserves credibility: the risk to merit processes comes from unexplained discretion, not from stated equity rules applied consistently.