Scholarship Requirements vs Preferences

TL;DR

• ‍‍Requirements are non-negotiable donor or regulatory conditions.‍
• Preferences signal an ideal student profile when multiple candidates meet the requirements.
• Treating the two buckets differently is a best-practice endorsed by NASFAA, NACUBO, and CASE for scholarship compliance and donor stewardship.
• Awarded Software is the only scholarship management software platform that lets universities model any combination of requirements and preferences (AND/OR logic, groups, tiers) in plain English, then auto-match students and surface why each student does or doesn’t qualify—no spreadsheets, no suspense.

‍

I. A Quick Primer on Requirements vs Preferences

‍

Before we begin, let's cover our bases and define what differentiates requirements from preferences.

Requirements: A must-meet criterion tied to law, policy, or donor intent (e.g., minimum 3.0 GPA, College of Engineering major).

Preferences: A desirable criterion that can tip the scales among equally eligible students (e.g., preference for first-generation students or robotics-club members).

The latest version of the gift agreement (where available) should be the source of truth on what the donor has defined as a requirement to award the fund vs. a preference.

‍

II. Why Drawing the Line Protects Compliance—and Relationships

‍

1. Audit Readiness – NASFAA’s ethical guidelines emphasize strict adherence to regulations; mixing requirements and preferences clouds the audit trail.
2. Restricted Fund Management – NACUBO warns that mis-awarded restricted funds can trigger clawbacks or frozen endowment payouts.
3. Donor Trust & Stewardship – CASE research shows honoring donor intent drives renewal gifts; clear separation builds credibility.
4. Operational Efficiency – Distinct rules let Financial Aid avoid “Excel gymnastics” that delay awarding cycles and refunds.

‍

III. Common Pitfalls When Lines Blur

‍

• Treating every criterion as equal → A donor who funds “female chemistry majors” discovers their award went elsewhere—reputational damage.
• Manual tie-breaker rankings → Weeks lost reconciling spreadsheets at peak season; late refunds jeopardize retention.
• No audit trail → Scramble to justify decisions when federal/state auditors visit.
• Static logic → Gift agreements evolve, but hard-coded rules require IT tickets and slow pivots.

‍

IV. How Awarded Software Future-Proofs the Process

A. Powerful Rules Engine

• Build simple rules (“must be a veteran”) or nested logic (“3.0 GPA AND Biology OR Environmental Science”)—no code, just clicks.
• Combine groups with AND/OR exactly as the gift agreement reads.
• Set up tiers for preferences to rank what matters most to the donor or stewardee.

B. Transparent Eligibility Reports

• Each student record displays:
  • ✔ Met all requirements (and WHY)
  • ⚠ Met requirements but missed specific preferences
  • ✘ Missed requirements (with details)

C. Single Source of Truth

• SIS data, donor criteria, and fund balances live in one dashboard—no copy-paste errors.
• Built-in policy engine flags out-of-policy awards before they happen.

D. Automation at Scale

• Auto-match, auto-renew, and bulk-award functions cut 80–90 % of manual work, freeing staff for advising and donor strategy.

‍

V. A Day in the Life with Awarded

1. Gift Agreement Arrives – An Awarded can upload their gift agreement and watch their criteria get automatically built out for them
2. Automatic Eligibility Verification – Using SIS data and optional student application data, Awarded will show you who does and doesn't meet the scholarship requirements automatically.
3. Evaluation & Selection – Using Awarded's one-stop-shop for eligibility verification, you can quickly prioritize students based on preference to make compliant award decisions quickly.
4. One-Click Awards & Notifications – Eligible students receive awards; notify students via email and/or text message at the click of a button.
5. Student Thank You's to Donor Reports in Seconds – Request thank you notes from award recipients via Awarded's student portal, and watch your donor reports get automatically built for you in seconds.

‍

VI. Best-Practice Checklist

☐ Separate non-negotiable requirements from nice-to-have preferences in every record.
☐ Tie each requirement to a verifiable data source (i.e., SIS field, student application).
☐ Document the order or weight of preferences for transparent tie-breaking.
☐ Use software that supports grouped AND/OR logic—ditch nested IFs in spreadsheets.
☐ Maintain an audit trail showing who changed a criterion and when.
☐ Provide real-time compliance dashboards for Advancement, Finance, and Financial Aid so there are no surprises down the road.