Question

Recently, some alumni of ABC threatened that their children should be given preference in admissions, or they would withdraw as recruiters. The director was, however, hesitant about allowing alumni to interfere in running the school because the fairness of the admissions process had earned ABC high respect within the corporate world that recruited from the school.
Which of the following reasons, if true, will BEST help the director NOT to worry about pandering to those alumni?

• A. The alumni were the reason that ABC was able to attract corporates.
• B. Some of the alumni were regularly teaching as guest faculty in the school.
• C. The alumni depend upon ABC’s success to enhance their employability.
• D. No business school, in the region, has allowed alumni any say in managing the operations.
• E. ABC has not entertained any requests from the alumni till date.
• A. The alumni do not follow research publications in general.
• B. The alumni do not care for the teachers, or classes, in general.
• C. The alumni are aware that ABC offers a retainable talent pool.
• D. ABC’s placements in the previous year were completed in 4 days.
• J. ABC could never break into the top 40 ranks in the country when it applied earlier.
• A. Students, who attend every class, should be given “thank you” notes from the director.
• B. Students should be asked to pay a monetary penalty for missing classes.
• C. Faculty members, who make classes very engaging, should be felicitated during the convocation.
• D. Only students, with at least 85 percent class attendance, will participate in placements.
• O. Students should be rewarded for contributing to in-class discussions and learning.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Analyze the scenario.
The alumni’s threats highlight their importance to the institution’s operations. However, the director must focus on the institution’s independence and credibility.
Step 2: Evaluate the options.
- Option 1: Highlights alumni’s role but does not directly justify ignoring their demands. 
-Option 2: Irrelevant to the alumni’s request for preferential admissions. 
- Option 3: Indicates that the alumni’s dependence on ABC’s success ensures mutual interest, making their threats less credible. 
- Option 4: Shows a regional precedent but does not directly relate to ABC’s specific case. 
- Option 5: Past decisions are not as compelling in the face of current challenges.
Final Answer: (3)

Answer 2

Step 1: Analyze the scenario.
The director’s concern revolves around visibility among recruiters and the need for faculty engagement in research and consulting. However, a strong talent pool and existing recruiter satisfaction might reduce the urgency of applying for rankings.
Step 2: Evaluate the options.
- Option 1: Indicates alumni’s indifference to research but does not address recruiter visibility.
- Option 2: Suggests alumni’s indifference to faculty efforts but is not linked to rankings. 
-Option 3: Highlights recruiter satisfaction with the talent pool, reducing reliance on rankings.
- Option 4: Shows placement efficiency but lacks direct impact on the ranking decision. 
-Option 5: Suggests prior failures in rankings but does not address recruiter satisfaction.
Final Answer: (3)

Answer 3

Step 1: Analyze the scenario.
The primary concern is the lack of attendance and seriousness among students. A strong measure tied to an essential aspect, like placements, would likely address this concern.
Step 2: Evaluate the options.
- Option 1: A “thank you” note is unlikely to incentivize students meaningfully. 
- Option 2: Monetary penalties might create resentment and are not directly linked to academic seriousness. 
- Option 3: Felicitating faculty may encourage teaching efforts but does not address student behavior. 
- Option 4: Linking attendance to placements provides a direct and impactful incentive for students to attend classes seriously. 
- Option 5: Rewards for class participation are beneficial but do not address attendance directly.
Final Answer: (4)