198 practice scenarios
Casper equity questions: how to answer them
Equity questions show someone being treated differently because of who they are or what they have: a venue a wheelchair user cannot enter, notes always assigned to the same people, a fee waived for a friend. Raters look for someone who notices the unfairness, speaks up proportionately and looks for a way that works for everyone.
How to answer a Casper equity question
- 1
Say what is unfair and to whom
Be specific: the venue shuts Theo out of an event he helped build. Naming the person and the effect shows you saw it.
- 2
Do not assume for the person affected
Ask them what they need. "He probably was not coming anyway" is exactly the assumption raters want you to challenge.
- 3
Raise it with whoever can change it
Speak to the organizer, manager or committee directly and respectfully. Explain the effect, not their character.
- 4
Offer a workable alternative
Another venue, a rotation, a clear rule applied the same way to everyone. Acknowledge the cost and say why it is still worth it.
A worked example
From Next time. You are on the executive team of a university club organizing its end-of-year social. The club president has booked a cheap venue on the second floor of a building with no elevator. One active member, Theo, uses a wheelchair.
What would you say to the president and the treasurer about holding the social where Theo cannot get in?
Here is a typical first attempt, scored on the 1–9 scale raters use, and the changes that would raise it.
6.5
This answer scores 6.5 out of 9. With these 4 changes, about 8.0.
I would tell the president and treasurer that we should move the social to a venue Theo can access, even if we lose the deposit. It isn’t okay to assume Theo wasn’t planning to come or to leave him out because the venue was booked.
- 1+0.5
Swap
we should move the social to a venue Theo can access
forFirst, I’d ask the venue whether there’s an accessible room we can use, then check other accessible venues if not.
Your original answer jumps directly to moving. Checking for an accessible room or another venue first shows practical judgment while keeping the goal of including Theo.
- 2+0.5
Swap
It isn’t okay to assume Theo wasn’t planning to come
forwe can’t assume Theo wasn’t planning to come, and that saying “next time” doesn’t address this event.
This preserves your clear objection and also answers the president’s postponement directly. It makes clear why a future promise does not resolve the exclusion happening now.
- 3+0.5
Swap
even if we lose the deposit
forIf moving is the only option, I think we should accept the deposit loss rather than exclude a member
You already accepted the financial cost; this adds a clear fallback after checking for other options and explains why inclusion takes priority.
- 4
Add
I’d ask Theo privately what would make the event workable for him, while making clear the club will handle the arrangements.
Your original answer does not involve Theo or clarify who will act on the access issue. This invites his perspective without shifting responsibility for fixing the venue onto him.
The first attempt is an example written by Confetto, not a real applicant's answer. The score and the changes are from Confetto's Casper coach. Not an official score.
Common mistakes
- Treating "the same rule for everyone" as automatically fair.
- Calling someone prejudiced before asking why they made the choice.
- Noticing the problem and staying quiet because it is not your decision.
Practice equity questions on the real timers
Answer on the clock and get each answer scored 1–9 the way raters score, with your own answer improved line by line.
Start my free trial
