Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

A state education department chooses between two programmes

You run the case. Read the prompt, answer questions from the notes below, and share data only when the candidate asks for it or gets stuck. Score at the end.

Case timer

00:00

Target length:

1. Read the prompt aloud

Read it slowly, then pause. Let the candidate ask questions before they structure.

Fictional and illustrative. A state education department in India has INR 20 crore (INR 200 million) to reduce the number of students who drop out of secondary school. Programme A, after-school tutoring, costs INR 4,000 per student. Evaluations suggest it keeps an extra 6 percent of the students it reaches in school, above those who would have stayed anyway. Programme B, a travel allowance, costs INR 2,500 per student and keeps an extra 4 percent in school. Which should it fund?

2. Answers to clarifying questions

This case has no scripted clarifying answers. Answer from the prompt, and say "assume what you think is reasonable" if the prompt does not cover it.

3. A model structure

Compare the candidate's structure with this one. A different split can be just as good if it is clean and fits the problem.

Extra students kept in school = budget / cost per student x extra share kept in school
- Programme A: tutoring, INR 4,000 per student, 6 percent extra kept
- Programme B: travel allowance, INR 2,500 per student, 4 percent extra kept
- Beyond the count: learning, fairness, delivery and stakeholders

4. The working, step by step

Each step shows how a strong candidate works it out. Share a new fact from it only when the candidate asks or is stuck, and let them do the math: the result in the dark box is what they should reach.

Step 1: Students reached by A
What a strong candidate does: The whole budget of INR 200 million at INR 4,000 per student.
Students reached by programme A: 200,000,000 ÷ 4,000 = 50,000
Step 2: Extra students kept by A
What a strong candidate does: Six percent of the students reached.
Extra students kept in school by A: 50,000 × 0.06 = 3,000
Step 3: Students reached by B
What a strong candidate does: The same budget at INR 2,500 per student.
Students reached by programme B: 200,000,000 ÷ 2,500 = 80,000
Step 4: Extra students kept by B
What a strong candidate does: Four percent of the students reached.
Extra students kept in school by B: 80,000 × 0.04 = 3,200
Step 5: Cost per extra student, A
What a strong candidate does: Cost per student divided by the extra share kept.
Cost per extra student kept, A (INR): 4,000 ÷ 0.06 = 66,667
Step 6: Cost per extra student, B
What a strong candidate does: The same for B.
Cost per extra student kept, B (INR): 2,500 ÷ 0.04 = 62,500

The recommendation to listen for

At the end, say: "The CEO walks in. What is your recommendation?"

Fund mainly the travel allowance, but keep a measured share for tutoring. On the main measure B is a little better, because it keeps about 3,200 extra students in school against 3,000 for A. That is about INR 62,500 per extra student against about INR 66,700. The gap is small, under 7 percent. I would still fund some tutoring, because both figures come from evaluations with their own error. Tutoring may also raise learning, which this count ignores. So I would put most of the budget into B. I would run A in a smaller set of districts with a proper comparison group: similar districts that do not get it. Next year I would decide on both dropout and test scores. Teachers' groups and district officials should hear the plan before it is announced.

Risks a strong answer names: Evaluation results from other places may not hold in this state; Allowances can be hard to stop once started.

Next steps: Agree with the finance department whether money can move between the two budget lines next year; Set up the comparison districts before the school year starts.

Score the candidate

Score each criterion from 1 to 5. A 2 or a 4 sits between the descriptions.

This case has no exhibit. Score Exhibit reading on how the candidate used the data you gave them: did they pick out the number that matters and say what it means?

Structuring

1: No clear structure, or a memorized framework that does not fit the problem.
3: A sensible structure, but with some overlap, a gap, or no clear priority.
5: A structure built for this problem, with no overlap and no gaps, a stated hypothesis, and a clear first step.

Math

1: Frequent errors, no units, or needed heavy help to finish.
3: Right answers but slow or messy working, or one error caught late.
5: Accurate and clearly narrated, with units, a sense check, and what the number means.

Exhibit reading

1: Read the chart aloud without finding the number that matters.
3: Found the key number but gave only part of the so-what.
5: Pulled the right number quickly and said what it means for the case.

Synthesis

1: Summarized what was done, with no clear answer.
3: Gave an answer, but with weak reasons or no next step.
5: Answer first, then two or three reasons with numbers, the main risk, and next steps.

Communication

1: Hard to follow: long silences, no signposting.
3: Clear most of the time, with some rambling.
5: Calm and concise, signposted each step, and checked in with the interviewer.

Total

0 out of 25

Score all five criteria to see the band and the feedback template.

Next: another case in Partner mode

Swap roles and run the next case, so you both practise answering and scoring.

Run the next case: 1. Per store: a bubble tea shop in Singapore Choose another case