To think that if 1 in 4 kids are "scholars" then the Scholar program is flawed?

[AYCOOYM]

so, a school I work at has about 400 pupils. of which 123 are scholars

scholars in this school are supposed to be the "best" and receive no monetary compensation.

AIBU to think that it it insane to award 25% of people a scholarship, that the program needs higher standards??

It depends, if they were awarded their places due to being exceptional musicians, sportsmen, mathematicians etc. amongst an already exceptional cohort, then you are being unreasonable.

In a highly exceptional school, with very high standards for entry, those children will probably be extraordinary.

There may be no money involved, but 400 pupils means a very small school, so I guess the scholars really had to be superbly gifted to qualify for a place. The title is just a recognition of that.

Do the students awarded scholarships have access to coaching/tuition outside of the normal curriculum, as a benefit of their award? If so, the scholarships are definitely worth something.

In a bog standard school, the scholarship probably means rather less. Rather like the 'gifted and talented' thing.

It's probably to encourage take up of places - a bit of kudos, if there is no financial benefit.

I agree, the currency of the word scholar is somewhat reduced when it is applied to 25% of the school population.