The Dean must balance fairness to Aparna with the need to send a strong message to the new faculty recruits that research contribution is essential.
Option 2 is the most balanced choice. It recognizes Aparna’s social outreach (fairness) while firmly reminding her that research and teaching are the core requirements for confirmation. This also sets the correct example for new recruits.
✅ Therefore, Option 2 is the most appropriate action.
Step 1: Core Conflict
- Aparna excels in social work but underperforms in research and teaching. - The Dean must balance institutional standards (teaching & research are essential) with external reputation (Aparna has political and media recognition). - A sustainable action is required, avoiding both favoritism and rigidity.
Step 2: Evaluate Options
- Option 1: Five-year contract then exit — inflexible, sends a negative message, not sustainable.
- Option 2: Outreach officer role — removes her from academics, but creates precedent of creating special roles, unsustainable.
- Option 3: Extend probation by three years with clear conditions — balanced, fair, allows Aparna time to improve while upholding standards. ✅
- Option 4: Confirm with frozen increments — weakens standards; sends a wrong message to new faculty that confirmation can happen without research.
- Option 5: Exceptional confirmation — favoritism, undermines credibility of academic evaluation.
Step 3: Conclusion
The most sustainable solution is to extend Aparna’s probation. It reassures external stakeholders of fairness, while also preserving the academic integrity of the institute.
Final Answer:
\[ \boxed{\text{Option (C): Extend probation by three years with clear teaching & research requirements.}} \]
Step 1: Identify the Core Conflict
- Aparna has publicly expressed doubts about meeting research and teaching requirements. - The council wants flexibility, but the Dean believes policy change will harm A2Z’s research leadership goals. Thus, the Dean needs to balance faculty support with institutional standards.
Step 2: Evaluate Options
- Option 1: Confirming Aparna despite shortcomings undermines research standards. A public statement doesn’t solve the problem.
- Option 2: Letting her go immediately for her statement is harsh, retaliatory, and harms reputation.
- Option 3: Confirming her now but tying promotions to research weakens entry-level standards — a poor precedent.
- Option 4: Best approach — reassures Aparna of the institute’s intent to retain her, but emphasizes research contribution as a must for confirmation. ✔️
- Option 5: Publicly criticizing Aparna is unprofessional and damages institutional credibility.
Step 3: Logical Conclusion
The Dean should neither dilute institutional standards nor act harshly. Option 4 balances compassion with academic rigor: retain talent, but reinforce that confirmation depends on research performance.
Final Answer:
\[ \boxed{\text{Option (D): Retain Aparna with reassurance, but emphasize research focus for confirmation.}} \]
Match the following airlines with the countries where they are headquartered.
Airlines | Countries |
---|---|
1. AirAsia | A. Singapore |
2. AZAL | B. South Korea |
3. Jeju Air | C. Azerbaijan |
4. Indigo | D. India |
5. Tigerair | E. Malaysia |
Match the following authors with their respective works.
Authors | Books |
---|---|
1. Andy Weir | A. Dune |
2. Cixin Liu | B. The Time Machine |
3. Stephen Hawking | C. The Brief History of Time |
4. HG Wells | D. The Martian |
5. Frank Herbert | E. The Three Body Problem |