Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

Choosing between two offers with a weighted score

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.

You have two offers. Your criteria and weights: people and culture 30 percent, learning 25 percent, office location 20 percent, pay 15 percent, future options 10 percent. You score each firm from 1 to 5. Firm A: 4, 5, 3, 4, 4. Firm B: 5, 3, 5, 3, 4. Which scores higher?

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.

Weighted score = sum of weight x score
- Firm A weighted score
- Firm B weighted score
- Compare, then sense-check

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: Firm A
What a strong candidate does: 0.30 x 4 + 0.25 x 5 + 0.20 x 3 + 0.15 x 4 + 0.10 x 4.
Firm A score: 0.3 × 4 + 0.25 × 5 + 0.2 × 3 + 0.15 × 4 + 0.1 × 4 = 4.05
Step 2: Firm B
What a strong candidate does: 0.30 x 5 + 0.25 x 3 + 0.20 x 5 + 0.15 x 3 + 0.10 x 4.
Firm B score: 0.3 × 5 + 0.25 × 3 + 0.2 × 5 + 0.15 × 3 + 0.1 × 4 = 4.1
Step 3: Sense-check
What a strong candidate does: The scores are almost equal. So the decision comes down to what matters most to you: Firm A teaches more; Firm B has the people and the location you prefer.

The recommendation to listen for

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

The method does not decide for you, but it shows where the real trade-off is. Here it is learning (Firm A) against people and location (Firm B). Talk to people at both firms about exactly that.

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.