Scholarship Up: Between Promise and Process

I spend a lot of time holding two ideas at once: the exhilaration of a scholarship that can change a life, and the quiet exhaustion students feel when they must prove they deserve it. Recent pages and posts—ranging from government portals to university scholarship pages and social-media promotions—reveal a landscape of genuine generosity tangled with procedural friction. I want to reflect on what I see, and offer practical, humane ideas for closing the distance between intention and impact.

What I read, and what it taught me

I started with the official One Time Registration (OTR) guidance on the UP Scholarship Portal, which is plainly written but strict: OTR will be mandatory from session 2025–26, and it requires an active mobile number and Aadhaar e‑KYC for generation of the OTR number (One Time Registration (OTR), UP Scholarship Portal). That requirement is intended to prevent duplication, but it also raises the question: what about students who lack either? I kept that tension in mind as I read other pieces.

On the supply side, I found a wide range of support: local community college news about the Aims Strong Start Scholarship offering up to $1,000 for new first-time students (Aims offering scholarship of up to $1,000 for first-time college students — Greeley Tribune); a medical college detailing merit and need-based awards including very large scholarships and, in some cases, up to 100% tuition coverage (Commonwealth University College of Medicine — Scholarships & Financial Aid); and a range of private and programmatic scholarship promotions—some promising up to 50% tuition or similar incentives—seen on social channels and short videos (AiA Achiever Program - Scholarship up to 50% - YouTube, MapMyStudy Facebook post, meadowlandsschool Instagram post, McCoy MWR Facebook post, bwbscindia reel, abngulberg reel). These examples show both the promise and the marketing that surrounds scholarship offers.

Taken together, the materials show a hopeful but uneven ecosystem: generous offers exist, but access is often mediated by forms, IDs, platforms, and documentation that are not equally available to everyone.

The moral and practical problem: access vs. oversight

I believe oversight is necessary. We must protect public funds from fraud and make sure limited resources reach real students. But oversight that functions like an impenetrable gate becomes its own form of exclusion. The students most likely to be shut out—first-generation college students, migrants, those without stable phones or formal identity documents—are often the ones scholarships aim to help.

So the question is not whether to verify eligibility; it is how to verify without turning verification into a roadblock.

Principles I hold when designing (or judging) scholarship systems

• Compassionate friction: verification should be no more onerous than absolutely necessary.
• Multiple pathways: a single technical barrier (e.g., Aadhaar + mobile) should not be the only path to eligibility.
• Proportional oversight: higher-risk disbursements justify stronger checks; small awards should be easier to access.
• Community-centered verification: local institutions and trusted intermediaries can vouch for applicants.
• Transparency and predictability: students should know exactly what is required and why.

Concrete ideas to reconcile access with accountability

• Offer alternative identity pathways. If a portal requires Aadhaar/e‑KYC for de-duplication (One Time Registration (OTR), UP Scholarship Portal), provide a parallel track that accepts community verification (school head, NGO letter, local government certificate) or other national IDs. A one-size-fits-all digital ID requirement amplifies inequity.

• Make documentation staged and minimal. Ask for the minimum up front to check basic eligibility; defer more invasive checks until funds are about to be disbursed. For example, quick enrollment verification could unlock provisional awards while full verification follows.

• Use risk-based oversight. High-value awards (like the large merit-based offers on some university pages CUCOM — Scholarships & Financial Aid) deserve robust checks; low-value, broad-based grants (like Aims’ Strong Start) should prioritize rapid access. Random audits and retrospective validation can reduce friction at application time while retaining deterrence.

• Build trusted local gateways. Schools, community colleges, local governments, and NGOs can serve as on-the-ground validators who help students complete applications, digitize documents, and vouch for identity—especially for first-generation students who may never have navigated such processes.

• Simplify language and channels. Many scholarships are promoted on social media and short-form video (AiA Achiever Program - Scholarship up to 50%, Instagram/Facebook posts above), but application portals are dense and technical. Align outreach with clear, step‑by‑step guidance, in regional languages, with screenshots and a helpline.

• Protect privacy while doing de-duplication. If the UP portal uses Aadhaar to de-duplicate, ensure data minimization, zero-knowledge checks where possible, and clear consent language so students understand what is shared and why (One Time Registration (OTR), UP Scholarship Portal).

• Track outcomes, not just inputs. We should measure whether scholarships improve persistence, graduation, and employment—especially for first-gen and disadvantaged students—rather than just the number of award letters issued. That shifts the system from transactional charity to long-term investment.

A closing thought

I keep returning to a simple image: a scholarship letter in one hand and a stack of required documents in the other. Which hand do we want to be heavier? My hope is that institutions—governments, universities, and NGOs—use technology and policy not as hurdles but as bridges. We can safeguard scarce resources and still trust the students we say we want to help. If we design systems with humility and an eye toward the margins, we will find that accessibility and oversight are not opposites but complementary responsibilities.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh