QTAC owes the State’s teens a lot more than a quick, superficial apology.

Its calamitous failure this week to deliver university preferences on time defies logic; after all, this is the central tenet of Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre’s job.

But its handling of the delay just magnifies its mistake and raises real questions about the repercussions it should face.

Routinely, our teens face discrimination: they are too young to vote, or not educated enough for a seat at the climate change table, or needing a few of life’s lessons before being taken too seriously.

And then an education body – which acts for 16 higher education providers – makes a mistake that creates anxiety, and in some cases possibly jeopardises futures – and it dismisses it, and the school leavers it serves, with a wordy explanation that would fail any year 12 English exam.

“The method of finalising offers for applicants this year has included new processes that have played out across a tight timeframe, one that draws on complex factors,’’ QTAC chief executive officer Dr John Griffiths announced.

What does that even mean? What “new processes’’? What “tight timeframe’’? And what are the “complex factors”?

Imagine the mark on a year 12 external English exam that didn’t answer those poignant questions, when the task was to explain a state-wide stuff-up that hindered students choosing course and cities and scholarships.

So InQueensland went back to QTAC with this direct question this week: what was the specific problem that forced the delay?

Another 15 sentence response, and not a clue of what might have happened. Not even a mention of the world ‘delay’ or ‘sorry’ or even, might I suggest ‘incompetent’.

Surely, at the very least, we can expect QTAC to meet the same standards required of the students it claims to serve.

Its response this week doesn’t only obfuscate, it runs counter to its own values; those it markets on its website. Passion. People. Adaptability. And integrity – including a promise to be “transparent and honest in all our interactions’’.

Fail.

And “we hold ourselves accountable to the highest ethical standards and strive to build trust and credibility with our customers, partners and employees’’.

Fail.

It’s not just our school leavers who are claiming that; students who have worked harder than their parents ever worked for external exams that spread angst and comparison and fear.

It’s individual universities who were forced into a situation of subbing in, and sending offers directly to students. Dr Griffiths shouldn’t think, for a moment, that they are content with the ‘mistake’ or how it was not explained.

Just compare how QTAC dealt with its ‘mistake’ compared to the Australian Catholic University which has admitted underpaying staff for seven years – to the tune of $3.6 million.

It apologised immediately in clear and unequivocal language – to every employee impacted. And it disclosed its mistake to the Fair Work Ombudsman, relevant unions, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and the ATO.

In contrast, the QTAC embarked on a three-point role-modelling exercise:

• Don’t admit your mistake or even call it a mistake. Label it an ‘issue’, if pressed.
• Don’t explain what happened; write a few flowery pars that mean nothing; and
• When questioned directly, pretend everything is fine.

Now how would that be dealt with, if it was a 17-year-old being marked?