Scholarship Ranking with Eligibility and a Donor Offer
A university scholarship committee must award one full-tuition place to a student from a low-income background. Three finalists remain. Candidate A scored 280 in UTME, has six O'level credits including English and Mathematics, and scored 18/25 at interview. Candidate B scored 265, has seven credits including English and Mathematics, and scored 22/25. Candidate C scored 290, has five credits but lacks a credit in English, and scored 20/25. The rules require at least five credits including English and Mathematics. The committee's weighting is 40% UTME (scaled to 400), 30% O'level (scored as number of relevant credits out of 8), and 30% interview (out of 25). A donor has offered to fund Candidate C separately if C is not selected, but only if the committee's decision is transparent. The committee chair wants the ranking to be defensible and to respect the minimum eligibility rule.
1. Apply the minimum eligibility rule. Is Candidate C eligible? What should the committee do about the donor's offer?
Read the worked answer
Candidate C is not eligible. The rule requires at least five credits including English and Mathematics. C has five credits but lacks English, so C fails a mandatory condition. The donor's offer does not override the committee's rules. The committee should explain the eligibility decision to the donor and ask whether the donor wishes to fund a separate remedial or conditional award outside the scholarship competition. It must not select C for the full-tuition place merely because outside money is available; doing so would make the published criteria meaningless and expose the committee to a fairness challenge.
2. Compute weighted scores for the eligible candidates using the stated weights. Show your working.
Read the worked answer
A is eligible: six credits including English and Mathematics. B is eligible: seven credits including both. C is ineligible.
- A: UTME 280/400 × 40 = 28.0; O'level 6/8 × 30 = 22.5; interview 18/25 × 30 = 21.6; total = 72.1.
- B: UTME 265/400 × 40 = 26.5; O'level 7/8 × 30 = 26.25; interview 22/25 × 30 = 26.4; total = 79.15.
- C (for comparison only): UTME 290/400 × 40 = 29.0; O'level 5/8 × 30 = 18.75; interview 20/25 × 30 = 24.0; total = 71.75, but C is disqualified.
B has the highest eligible score.
3. Recommend a winner and explain how the committee should present the decision to be defensible.
Read the worked answer
Recommend Candidate B. B meets the eligibility rule, has the strongest O'level profile, the best interview score, and the highest weighted total (79.15). A has a higher UTME score but is weaker on the other two criteria. C's raw score is lower than B's in any case, so the donor issue does not change the winner, but the committee must still enforce the English-credit rule. To make the decision defensible, the committee should publish the rubric, show the eligibility check and weighted calculations in the minutes, record the donor discussion separately, and state that no criterion was waived.