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?

In the context of the question, Aarya has faced a frustrating situation where the business school made an error by offering more admissions than available seats, leading to her being presented with a deferred admission or a full refund. Aarya is now questioning the integrity and reliability of the business school. The task is to identify which consideration would restore her faith in the institution. Only Option E helps with this cause: this response is the most relevant because it shows that the business school took full responsibility for its mistake (owning the error) and made efforts to resolve the situation in a way that helped the affected students. This is key in rebuilding trust, as it indicates a commitment to transparency and accountability. Typically, when organizations own up to their mistakes and offer assistance, it can help restore confidence in them, especially after an incident that could have damaged their reputation.

Option A is tangential to the question: while a deferment could be personally beneficial for Aarya, this response does not directly address the issue of the breach of trust caused by the school’s mistake. Options B and D suffer from a similar issue. The fact that the business school runs certain programs does not address the specific breach of trust Aarya has experienced. Similarly, the prevalence of the practice also need not assuage Aarya’s fears.

Option C compares Aarya’s situation to a different case, which could be seen as minimizing her current frustration; however, like the other options, it doesn’t focus on the specific actions taken by the business school to correct the mistake in Aarya’s case, which is central to her rebuilding faith in the institution.