After working hard on MBA entrance-exam preparations for one year, Aarya received two admission offers: one from the two-year agribusiness program of a premier business school, and another one from a brand new, but buzzworthy, global one-year executive MBA program in General Management in a mid-tier business school. As she did not have much interest in agribusiness, Aarya opted to enrol in the one-year executive MBA program, and promptly submitted her first instalment of fees towards admission. She was very happy that she would soon embark on her MBA journey.
To her shock, a few days later, she received a call from the authorities of the mid-tier business school. They informed her that due to a technical glitch in their system, more admission offers were made than the available seats. Consequently, candidates lower on the merit list, including Aarya, were being offered a choice from the following options: a deferred admission next year to the same program, or a full refund of the fees. They also said, if interested, Aarya could right now join a similar program, starting in a newly launched campus of the same business school, where many seats were available.
Aarya considered the whole episode a breach of trust, and wondered, if it would at all be worthwhile to be associated with this business school now or in the future.
Which of the following considerations will BEST restore her faith in this business school?
Answer: C
Stakeholder and criterion: Aarya sees the over-admission as a breach of trust. What would restore her faith is evidence of the school's integrity in handling this mistake.
Why option 3 is best: trust after an error comes back when the institution admits fault and makes a real effort to put things right. Owning the mistake and doing its best for the affected candidates, through deferral, refund or a seat at the new campus, shows honesty and care. That speaks directly to her sense of betrayal.
- Option 1: placements at a different school after a similar incident say nothing about this school's integrity.
- Option 2: extra work experience is a practical upside of deferral. It does not repair trust in the school.
- Option 4: teaching ethics to corporates does not show ethical conduct towards its own candidates. If anything it highlights the gap.
- Option 5: saying over-offering is common practice excuses the problem and suggests it was deliberate, not a glitch. That would deepen her distrust.
Answer: Option 3