Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

Two youth jobs programmes: which buys more outcome?

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.

A government has USD 10 million to help young people find jobs. Programme A (classroom training) costs USD 2,000 per trainee, and 25 percent of trainees find a job they would not otherwise have found. Programme B (paid apprenticeships with employers) costs USD 5,000 per trainee, and 70 percent find a job they would not otherwise have found. Which programme gets more extra jobs for the money?

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.

Compare cost per extra job, not cost per trainee
- Trainees = budget / cost per trainee
- Extra jobs = trainees x additional success rate
- Key: Cost per extra job

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: Programme A trainees
What a strong candidate does: USD 10 million at USD 2,000 each.
Programme A trainees: 10,000,000 ÷ 2,000 = 5,000
Step 2: Programme A extra jobs
What a strong candidate does: 25 percent of 5,000.
Programme A extra jobs: 5,000 × 0.25 = 1,250
Step 3: Programme B trainees
What a strong candidate does: USD 10 million at USD 5,000 each.
Programme B trainees: 10,000,000 ÷ 5,000 = 2,000
Step 4: Programme B extra jobs
What a strong candidate does: 70 percent of 2,000.
Programme B extra jobs: 2,000 × 0.7 = 1,400
Step 5: Cost per extra job, A
What a strong candidate does: USD 2,000 divided by 0.25.
Programme A cost per extra job (USD): 2,000 ÷ 0.25 = 8,000
Step 6: Cost per extra job, B
What a strong candidate does: USD 5,000 divided by 0.7.
Programme B cost per extra job (USD): 5,000 ÷ 0.7 = 7,143

The recommendation to listen for

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

The government should fund Programme B, because it buys about 1,400 extra jobs against 1,250 for Programme A with the same USD 10 million. First, B costs about USD 7,143 per extra job against USD 8,000 for A, even though it costs 2.5 times more per trainee. Second, this means cost per outcome, not cost per person served, is the right measure. The risk is that the 70 percent success rate was not measured against a comparison group. As a next step, confirm how success was measured and whether employers can take 2,000 apprentices.

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.