Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 11613
Submitted: March 12, 2024 at 3:30:35 AM
First Name: Tian Cheng
Last Name: Dong
Pronoun: She/Her
Preferred Name: Rina
Student Number: 20343296
Email: 21tcd2@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: ECON
Level of Study: 2
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: MATH 280
Term: Fall
Year: 2023
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Thomas Barthelmé
Section/Class Number: 1
Code: COMM 251
Term: Fall
Year: 2023
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Sue Haywood
Section/Class Number: 1
Code: STAT 263
Term: Fall
Year: 2023
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Charles Molson
Section/Class Number: 1
Code: ENGL 100
Term: Fall/Winter
Year: 2023
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: .
Section/Class Number: .
Code: PSYC 100
Term: Fall/Winter
Year: 2023
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Meghan Norris
Section/Class Number: .
Level 1 Status
Status: Granted with ConditionsLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 300
Submitted: December 5, 2024 at 7:02:34 PM
Relevant Petition: 11613
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: ENGL 100, Fall/Winter 2023 (.)
Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: PSYC 100, Fall/Winter 2023 (Meghan Norris)
Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: PSYC 100, Fall/Winter 2023 (Meghan Norris)
Appeal Grounds
Appeals to the Board of Studies must include a letter based on one or more of the Grounds for Appeal (Appeal Regulation 3.4). What are the grounds you are basing your appeal on?
- The Associate Dean's decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as the Associate Dean failed to:
- Follow the university rules and regulations in a way that supported your right to a fair process.
- Make a reasonable decision in your appeal. A “reasonable” decision is one that is based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from the facts. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions.
Appeal Grounds Details: Dear Members of the Board of Studies,
I am appealing the Associate Dean’s decision to deny my petition for credit standing in ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 on the grounds that it did not adhere to the principles of procedural fairness, as articulated in Appeal Regulation 3.4.
First, I believe the decision was not reasonable because it did not take into account all of the relevant evidence before drawing conclusions. The Associate Dean’s letter indicated that key documents—such as a letter from Student Health Services (provided by a counselor I consulted in late March 2024), a letter from my father, a letter from his doctor, and a detailed log of my travels—were not received at the time the decision was rendered. Without these materials, the Associate Dean lacked critical context to understand the full extent of the exceptional personal circumstances I faced. The absence of these documents led to a decision that was not based on the complete set of facts, thereby compromising its reasonableness.
Furthermore, the conclusion that my subsequent academic success and performance in other Winter courses negated the difficulties I experienced in ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 is not logically supported. The decision failed to consider the distinct nature of these courses, which relied heavily on memory and continuous cognitive engagement—precisely the academic skills most affected by the emotional distress and anxiety I experienced due to my father’s deteriorating health. By overlooking how these specific stressors interact with certain types of coursework, the Associate Dean did not logically connect the facts to the final conclusion.
Procedural fairness also requires an unbiased review process and a fair application of regulations. In this case, the lack of acknowledgment regarding the unique academic demands of the courses in question, as well as the relevance of the missing documentation, suggests that my right to a fully informed and impartial assessment was not fully upheld.
In summary, the Associate Dean’s decision was not reasonable because it was made without all of the supporting evidence, did not consider the particular nature of the impacted courses, and drew conclusions not fully supported by logical inference. I respectfully request that the Board of Studies review my appeal with all available evidence, ensuring that my circumstances are assessed fairly, impartially, and with a reasoned approach to the facts.
Sincerely,
Rina Dong
I am appealing the Associate Dean’s decision to deny my petition for credit standing in ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 on the grounds that it did not adhere to the principles of procedural fairness, as articulated in Appeal Regulation 3.4.
First, I believe the decision was not reasonable because it did not take into account all of the relevant evidence before drawing conclusions. The Associate Dean’s letter indicated that key documents—such as a letter from Student Health Services (provided by a counselor I consulted in late March 2024), a letter from my father, a letter from his doctor, and a detailed log of my travels—were not received at the time the decision was rendered. Without these materials, the Associate Dean lacked critical context to understand the full extent of the exceptional personal circumstances I faced. The absence of these documents led to a decision that was not based on the complete set of facts, thereby compromising its reasonableness.
Furthermore, the conclusion that my subsequent academic success and performance in other Winter courses negated the difficulties I experienced in ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 is not logically supported. The decision failed to consider the distinct nature of these courses, which relied heavily on memory and continuous cognitive engagement—precisely the academic skills most affected by the emotional distress and anxiety I experienced due to my father’s deteriorating health. By overlooking how these specific stressors interact with certain types of coursework, the Associate Dean did not logically connect the facts to the final conclusion.
Procedural fairness also requires an unbiased review process and a fair application of regulations. In this case, the lack of acknowledgment regarding the unique academic demands of the courses in question, as well as the relevance of the missing documentation, suggests that my right to a fully informed and impartial assessment was not fully upheld.
In summary, the Associate Dean’s decision was not reasonable because it was made without all of the supporting evidence, did not consider the particular nature of the impacted courses, and drew conclusions not fully supported by logical inference. I respectfully request that the Board of Studies review my appeal with all available evidence, ensuring that my circumstances are assessed fairly, impartially, and with a reasoned approach to the facts.
Sincerely,
Rina Dong
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: Dear Members of the Board of Studies,
I am writing to appeal the Associate Dean’s decision denying my petition for credit standing in ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 from the Winter 2022/2023 term. While I fully appreciate the importance of maintaining academic standards and integrity, I believe the decision did not adhere to principles of procedural fairness and did not accurately reflect the full context of my situation. I respectfully ask that you reconsider my case now that I can confirm the availability of critical supporting documents that were not received or considered at the time of the original decision.
The crux of my petition is that my academic performance in ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 was adversely affected by extraordinary personal circumstances. During the Winter 2022/2023 term, I learned of my father’s deteriorating health while I was still living away from home. This news caused significant emotional distress, anxiety, and worry, all of which directly impacted my ability to concentrate, remember key concepts, and engage with the rigorous analytical demands of both courses. ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 require sustained cognitive focus, memory retention, and analytical thinking—precisely the areas most susceptible to impairment under heightened stress and anxiety.
In the Associate Dean’s denial letter, it was noted that I performed well in other Winter courses and achieved strong results in subsequent summer courses. While this is accurate, it does not negate the difficulties I faced during the Winter term. The courses I succeeded in during that period were more practical, collaborative, or less reliant on intensive memory work. Such formats were not as severely affected by my emotional state. Similarly, my improved performance in the summer occurred when I had returned home and could verify my father’s care firsthand, creating a more stable emotional environment and allowing me to refocus on my studies. A logical and fair assessment would distinguish between the conditions surrounding my performance at different times and in different types of courses, rather than assuming that later success automatically invalidates earlier hardship.
Moreover, the Associate Dean’s decision letter indicated that key evidence intended to support my petition was not received. This missing evidence includes a letter from Student Health Services (authored by a counselor I consulted in late March 2024), a letter from my father, a letter from his doctor, and a detailed log of the numerous trips I made to and from my family home after learning of his condition. Each of these documents offers substantial context. The counselor’s letter would attest to the mental and emotional challenges I faced and my attempts to cope responsibly. The letters from my father and his doctor would confirm the severity, timeline, and impact of his medical condition, demonstrating that my anxiety was rooted in a verified and serious situation. The travel log, supported by bus tickets, would reveal the extraordinary efforts I took to be with my father, showing how much time, emotional energy, and focus were diverted away from a stable study schedule.
Without these materials, the Associate Dean’s assessment was incomplete. Procedural fairness dictates that decisions be rendered based on all relevant evidence, carefully considered. Had the full documentation been available, it would likely have guided a more empathetic and logically consistent analysis. Instead, the decision appears to have been made without a true understanding of how my father’s health crisis and my efforts to support him directly affected my coursework.
I am not seeking to undermine academic policies or standards. Rather, I am asking that my record reflect a reasoned and just assessment of my situation. By reviewing my appeal with the new evidence in hand and considering the significant differences in my circumstances between the Winter and summer terms, the Board of Studies can ensure that the final outcome is both fair and factually supported.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I trust that a thorough, context-sensitive re-evaluation of my case will lead to a more equitable resolution that acknowledges both the extraordinary challenges I faced and the integrity of the academic process.
Sincerely,
Rina Dong
I am writing to appeal the Associate Dean’s decision denying my petition for credit standing in ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 from the Winter 2022/2023 term. While I fully appreciate the importance of maintaining academic standards and integrity, I believe the decision did not adhere to principles of procedural fairness and did not accurately reflect the full context of my situation. I respectfully ask that you reconsider my case now that I can confirm the availability of critical supporting documents that were not received or considered at the time of the original decision.
The crux of my petition is that my academic performance in ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 was adversely affected by extraordinary personal circumstances. During the Winter 2022/2023 term, I learned of my father’s deteriorating health while I was still living away from home. This news caused significant emotional distress, anxiety, and worry, all of which directly impacted my ability to concentrate, remember key concepts, and engage with the rigorous analytical demands of both courses. ENGL 100 and PSYC 100 require sustained cognitive focus, memory retention, and analytical thinking—precisely the areas most susceptible to impairment under heightened stress and anxiety.
In the Associate Dean’s denial letter, it was noted that I performed well in other Winter courses and achieved strong results in subsequent summer courses. While this is accurate, it does not negate the difficulties I faced during the Winter term. The courses I succeeded in during that period were more practical, collaborative, or less reliant on intensive memory work. Such formats were not as severely affected by my emotional state. Similarly, my improved performance in the summer occurred when I had returned home and could verify my father’s care firsthand, creating a more stable emotional environment and allowing me to refocus on my studies. A logical and fair assessment would distinguish between the conditions surrounding my performance at different times and in different types of courses, rather than assuming that later success automatically invalidates earlier hardship.
Moreover, the Associate Dean’s decision letter indicated that key evidence intended to support my petition was not received. This missing evidence includes a letter from Student Health Services (authored by a counselor I consulted in late March 2024), a letter from my father, a letter from his doctor, and a detailed log of the numerous trips I made to and from my family home after learning of his condition. Each of these documents offers substantial context. The counselor’s letter would attest to the mental and emotional challenges I faced and my attempts to cope responsibly. The letters from my father and his doctor would confirm the severity, timeline, and impact of his medical condition, demonstrating that my anxiety was rooted in a verified and serious situation. The travel log, supported by bus tickets, would reveal the extraordinary efforts I took to be with my father, showing how much time, emotional energy, and focus were diverted away from a stable study schedule.
Without these materials, the Associate Dean’s assessment was incomplete. Procedural fairness dictates that decisions be rendered based on all relevant evidence, carefully considered. Had the full documentation been available, it would likely have guided a more empathetic and logically consistent analysis. Instead, the decision appears to have been made without a true understanding of how my father’s health crisis and my efforts to support him directly affected my coursework.
I am not seeking to undermine academic policies or standards. Rather, I am asking that my record reflect a reasoned and just assessment of my situation. By reviewing my appeal with the new evidence in hand and considering the significant differences in my circumstances between the Winter and summer terms, the Board of Studies can ensure that the final outcome is both fair and factually supported.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I trust that a thorough, context-sensitive re-evaluation of my case will lead to a more equitable resolution that acknowledges both the extraordinary challenges I faced and the integrity of the academic process.
Sincerely,
Rina Dong
Documentation
Document: winter-2022.pdf
Document: letter-15.pdf
Document: log - Google Sheets.pdf
Document: Dong Gui Lin 7135176-0.pdf
I plan to submit additional documentation at a later date: There is a letter sent by Student Health Services in late March of 2024. I was told that it was sent directly to the Academic Appeals contact. I cannot access it currently but I am in contact with Student Health Services to retreive it.