Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: To: Associate Dean (Academic)
Re: Facilitate a Formal Review of Instructors’ Decisions on Grading of Term Work and/or Final Examinations
Reason: Bias, error, and in adherence to syllabus material.
Date: Monday December 23, 2024
Date of Informal response from professor: December 13, 2024

Jeremy Hua (20277796)
COMM 306: Business for Good; Section 004

Business for Good Re-Evaluation Request for Midterm

To: Associate Dean (Academic)
Re: Facilitate a Formal Review of Instructors’ Decisions on Grading of Term Work and/or Final Examinations
Reason: Bias, error, and in adherence to syllabus material.
Date: Wednesday December 23, 2024
Date of Informal response from professor: December 13, 2024

Jeremy Hua (20277796)
COMM 306: Business for Good

Re-Evaluation Request:

Respectfully, I do not believe that this midterm outlines my understanding of the course, nor thoughtful in-class discussions or the quality of the writing that I wrote during my exam. I have reasons to believe that the grading for the assessment was quite rushed, and is, at least in my case, not delivering deserving marks for answers. Namely, when I originally received my examination back, 50% of my questions did not have any feedback at all on them, seen on Crowdmark, and I originally scored a 54% on the exam. Now, my professor then reviewed the comments (after the long period of time), and then I think there continues to be some bias on the marking of several questions. For some questions I have had the opportunity re-read with his feedback and believe are entirely reasonable. I have outlined the ones I believe are unreasonable below, in sequence of short answer to long answer section questions, including their ratings.

Current Mark on Midterm Exam: 57%. Grade average outside of the midterm: 82.7%

Question 1: Explanation of En-Roads Simulation (1/4). I believe my answer deserves a 3/4. My answer very clearly alluded to and demonstrated understanding by referencing key outcomes of electrification, such as its dual role in reducing emissions while increasing demand for rare-earth minerals, which can exacerbate environmental degradation. I started my question by asking clear and to-the-point questions that prompt you to think about “what comes next,” when utilizing electrified energy sources, emphasizing the rippling effects of policy changes on energy and resource use. For example, the simulation’s results align with Jevons Paradox, which demonstrates that increased energy efficiency can paradoxically increase overall energy consumption. Specifically, Litrico mentioned that “what matters is not whether a car produces emissions at the tailpipe, but whether electricity production is carbon-intensive or not.” In response, while the carbon intensity of electricity is crucial, it is not the only factor that matters when evaluating electric vehicles (EVs). En-ROADS also accounts for the lifecycle emissions of vehicles, including Mining processes for the materials which I talk about, manufacturing emissions (e.g., batteries, which are resource- and energy-intensive) and vehicle disposal and recycling processes.

Question 3: Graph and Definition (2/4). I am hoping for a 3 out of 4 for this question. My definition aligns with concepts from Howard-Grenville’s