Statement: Despite repeated warnings to students and parents, some students have still failed to meet the mandatory 75% attendance required to appear for examinations. Courses of Action: I. The college should stop adhering to this attendance criterion. II. Call the parents/guardians of the defaulters for a meeting and enforce remedial steps.
-
AOnly I follows.
-
BOnly II follows.
-
CEither I or II follows.
-
DNeither I nor II follows.
-
EBoth I and II follow.
Answer
Correct Answer: Only II follows.
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Attendance minima aim to ensure academic engagement. Persistent non-compliance after warnings calls for enforcement and remediation, not dilution of the standard.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- The 75% rule is known and repeatedly communicated.
- Some students remain below threshold.
- Colleges can involve guardians for corrective plans.
Concept / Approach:Academic integrity requires maintaining standards while offering remedies (attendance improvement plans, makeup labs/tutorials where regulations permit). Scrapping the rule (I) undercuts fairness to compliant students and future discipline.
Step-by-Step Solution:1) Notify defaulters; require guardian meetings to discuss causes and plans.2) Provide allowable remedial mechanisms (medical condonation as per rules, extra assignments/practicals) without compromising policy.3) Enforce consequences for persistent default per regulations.
Verification / Alternative check:Maintaining criteria aligns incentives; parental involvement increases accountability and support.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:I: Removes a legitimate requirement. Either/Both/Neither: Only II is the proportionate step.
Common Pitfalls:Inconsistent enforcement; granting blanket condonation without documented grounds.
Final Answer:Only II follows.