Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 11523
Submitted: February 1, 2024 at 6:15:56 PM
First Name: Matthew
Last Name: King
Pronoun: He/Him
Preferred Name: Matt
Student Number: 20385837
Email: 22rgd2@queensu.ca
Degree Program: ASC
Plan: ECON, POLS, PHIL
Level of Study: 1
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Code: POLS110A
Term: Fall
Year: 2023
Petition Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor's Name: Henry Soriba
Section/Class Number: 013
Component: Final Exam
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: Request for Regrade on POLS110A Exam
Dear Mr. Soriba,
I hope this communication finds you in good health. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the grades assigned to my exam responses (A3, B2, and C3). I believe that a reevaluation is warranted based on the alignment of my work with the outlined criteria.
In response to the first prompt, I adhered closely to the specified criteria, ensuring the inclusion of word count, proper citations, and addressing the questions comprehensively. My exploration of the pervasiveness of politics in everyday life was thorough, drawing from both course material and external factors. The discussion on the relationship between politics, individual liberties, and the role of the state in liberal democracies displayed a depth of understanding. The integration of Professor Rose's concepts further strengthened my analysis, and I believe the overall quality of my response merits reconsideration.
My second response, demonstrating an application of course concepts to support my arguments on the parliamentary systems, deserves a reevaluation. I delved into the appropriate limitations on the executive in parliamentary systems, advocating for parliamentary supremacy. The inclusion of historical references and examples added significance to my argument. The evidence based approach and critical evaluation of government actions showcased a solid understanding of federalism. I am confident that the quality of my response justifies a reevaluation.
In my response to the third and final prompt, I took care to offer a clear definition and contextualization of citizens' assemblies. I analyzed their potential to address the lack of democratic participation, considering both positive contributions and challenges. The integration of course material supported my arguments, and the exploration of complexities, such as biases and knowledge disparities, was accompanied by thoughtful suggestions. The changing dynamics between citizens and their engagement with politics were effectively explored. Given the depth of analysis and integration of coursework, I believe my third response warrants reconsideration as well.
I understand the significance of maintaining high academic standards and appreciate the time you invest in providing constructive feedback. I am open to specific suggestions or areas of improvement that you may identify to further enhance the quality of my responses.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
Sincerely,
Matthew King
POLS110A - 001
20385837
Dear Mr. Soriba,
I hope this communication finds you in good health. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the grades assigned to my exam responses (A3, B2, and C3). I believe that a reevaluation is warranted based on the alignment of my work with the outlined criteria.
In response to the first prompt, I adhered closely to the specified criteria, ensuring the inclusion of word count, proper citations, and addressing the questions comprehensively. My exploration of the pervasiveness of politics in everyday life was thorough, drawing from both course material and external factors. The discussion on the relationship between politics, individual liberties, and the role of the state in liberal democracies displayed a depth of understanding. The integration of Professor Rose's concepts further strengthened my analysis, and I believe the overall quality of my response merits reconsideration.
My second response, demonstrating an application of course concepts to support my arguments on the parliamentary systems, deserves a reevaluation. I delved into the appropriate limitations on the executive in parliamentary systems, advocating for parliamentary supremacy. The inclusion of historical references and examples added significance to my argument. The evidence based approach and critical evaluation of government actions showcased a solid understanding of federalism. I am confident that the quality of my response justifies a reevaluation.
In my response to the third and final prompt, I took care to offer a clear definition and contextualization of citizens' assemblies. I analyzed their potential to address the lack of democratic participation, considering both positive contributions and challenges. The integration of course material supported my arguments, and the exploration of complexities, such as biases and knowledge disparities, was accompanied by thoughtful suggestions. The changing dynamics between citizens and their engagement with politics were effectively explored. Given the depth of analysis and integration of coursework, I believe my third response warrants reconsideration as well.
I understand the significance of maintaining high academic standards and appreciate the time you invest in providing constructive feedback. I am open to specific suggestions or areas of improvement that you may identify to further enhance the quality of my responses.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
Sincerely,
Matthew King
POLS110A - 001
20385837
Documentation
Professional Letter Detail: NO DOC
History
Originally submitted February 1, 2024 at 6:15:56 PM.
| Field | Reference | Old Value | New Value | Note | User | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| status | N/A | Received | Incomplete | Kerri Andrews | 2024-02-13 11:51:44 AM | |
| status | N/A | Incomplete | Withdrawn | Kerri Andrews | 2024-04-11 11:26:07 AM |

