How to Win a High School Case Competition (Case Competition 101) | HSACC

Executive Summary

The workshop explains how to build a persuasive case-competition recommendation: answer the specific decision the client faces, choose a clear course of action, support it with evidence and transparent logic, and address the strongest counterarguments. The speaker emphasizes that a defensible argument matters more than guessing a single “right” answer—and that a polished, professional presentation affects how judges perceive the work.

Case and Business Context

The competition’s case centers on Apple’s response to rising memory-chip costs, including implications for iPhone pricing and product-market decisions over the next few years.

The presenter said memory-chip prices had risen roughly 4–5× over the prior 12 months and that newly launched iPhone prices had increased by about $100–$300. These figures were presented as case context to investigate, not as a complete explanation of Apple’s pricing.

Other factors may also affect Apple’s prices, including margin goals, signaling, and other input costs. Apple’s position is also shaped by broader AI-related investment and changes across the tech sector.

The assignment is to recommend what Apple should do about pricing and related product or market choices—not simply describe what Apple is already doing.

Frameworks and Playbooks

Frame the Decision Before Analyzing the Topic

• Identify the actual decision being requested.
• Clarify who the client is and what they value.
• Identify constraints: which actions are in scope, and what information or time is available.
• Avoid tangents, even when they involve relevant business issues.

Use Hypothesis-First Problem Solving

Start with a clear view of what the company should do, then build a logical chain from evidence to recommendation. First-principles thinking and comparisons to similar past situations can help structure judgment, though neither guarantees the answer.

Commit to One Recommendation

Give the client one actionable course of action rather than a list of equally weighted options. Be specific about which products, customers, markets, or conditions the recommendation applies to. Acknowledge alternatives and explain why the recommended path is stronger.

Build Slides Around a Point of View

• Use the title or opening slide to state the core conclusion.
• When presenting, give context first and make the main claim the third sentence. This helps explain why the claim matters rather than merely reading the slide.
• Make each slide communicate one main idea, combining the argument and supporting evidence where useful.

Use Evidence Carefully

Start with the competition’s case materials and add credible external sources. Cite sources briefly at the bottom of slides; the speaker said a full bibliography slide is unnecessary. Use precise business terminology—for example, market share is not the same as profitability.

Make the Work Professional

Prioritize clean, readable slides and clear delivery over decorative effects. Typos, unclear visuals, or a sloppy deck can undermine the perceived quality of the analysis, even if visual design is a smaller formal scoring category.

Round 1 Deck Guidance

The suggested deck is approximately 8–10 slides:

1. Title slide
2. Recommendation (“money slide”)
3. 3–4 slides building the argument
4. 2–3 slides of supporting evidence and data
5. 1–2 slides addressing justification, risks, or trust
6. 1 slide with an action plan

The speaker described judging the deck on thinking, evidence, and appearance, with a stated 70/20/10 split, respectively. He also said the video pitch accounted for 70%; the transcript is unclear about how the pitch and deck percentages fit together, so teams should check the official rubric.

Round 2 is a live presentation of the same deck, with no revision.

Operational Example: Underperforming Coffee Locations

The workshop uses a hypothetical chain with 200 locations, half of which are losing money, to demonstrate how to structure a decision. Possible actions include closing some locations, trying to improve them, or using a targeted combination. The lesson is to make the choice depend on analysis rather than a blanket rule.

Potential evaluation factors include:

• Whether stores were profitable in the past and what changed.
• Location-level economics, foot traffic, local competition, and market saturation.
• Whether underperformance is fixable—for example, through operational improvements or pricing changes.
• The cost of closure, including equipment, inventory, and potential staff severance.
• Reputational effects of shutting locations and the value of retaining customer visibility.
• Whether the company has cash or free cash flow to reinvest in stores.

Closing unprofitable sites can reduce losses, but may also reduce market share and harm the brand. Keeping stores may be justified if they have a credible path to profitability. A comparison such as Costa Coffee’s approach can be useful, but teams should assess whether the precedent worked in a comparable situation rather than treating it as proof.

Metrics and Competition Details

• The speaker reported 4–5× memory-chip price increases over 12 months and $100–$300 iPhone price increases.
• He said Apple’s gross margins were down but provided no exact figure.
• The competition had received roughly 1,000 applications at the time; the presenter estimated it could reach 2,000–10,000. These were estimates, not final counts.
• The presenter mentioned approximately $5,000 in prizes and a Ladder internship scholarship.
• The event has two virtual rounds: an asynchronous submission round and a live second round.

Sources and Presenters

• Presenter: Stephen Turban, HSACC judge. He described his background at Harvard and McKinsey and his work co-founding Lumiere Education.
• Competition and source: Harvard Student Agencies Case Competition (HSACC). The speaker recommended using the case packet alongside credible external industry evidence.