Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Dear Associate Dean,

1. I would like to formally appeal to have your final grade in PSYC 100 (summer term 2015) re-evaluated, and I would like to appeal for Credit standing in ECON 111.

2. The candidate would like to formally appeal on the moral grounds thereof:
a. That the final examination papers of PSYC 100 are reread by an unbiased examiner.
b. That the examination comments from the candidate about questions set in the exam are considered to be factual, legal, and comprehensive.
c. That both sections of the examination in Psychology are reread for consistency.
d. That the final result of the final honors, paper resides between 75-80 within an approximate error margin of 4 given the comments made by the candidate.

3. The candidate would like to formally appeal the ECON 111 grade hereof:
a. That the final mark is changed to a credit standing or ¿¿CR¿ grade to account rather than a ¿D+¿¿ grade.
b. According to the regulations, I should have written support to appeal the standing of this result. I have sent an email to the instructor requesting this support. (See attachments)

4. I would also like to appeal to drop the course past the academic deadline instead if this previous appeal is not successful.

Facts:

1. I received an email on 16th September from the Psychology instructor called Jackie that indicated there was no change in the result.
2. I have given the short answer section 18/24 with the evidence provided on the 27th August 2015.
3. After I reviewed the multiple choice, I found 6 questions that were marked differently to my expectations in PSYC 100.
4. I have written to the Economics Professor Dr. McKeown on the 23rd of December 2015 to support my application for a credit standing in the ECON 111 Summer course.

Extenuating conditions:

1. During the summer, my mother suffered from certain medical problems, such that I had to spend approximately 20 hours a week looking after her.
2. I am the only caregiver in the home 24-7 around the clock, and I have witnessed her condition deteriorating over the past months.
3. Although she is steadily improving, her medical condition is not yet as strong as before.
4. Also, the family that lives externally to the household have always been estranged, and thus have not supported her at any time.
5. Therefore, I devoted a lot of my private time to protecting her and installing medical equipment.

Suggestions or Assumptions:

Premises:

1. The candidate completed course credits at Queens in the last year over 70.
2. The candidate completed high school credits within the social sciences, language and literature over 80. The candidate¿¿s high school average is an equivalent GPA 4.0 (US) with 3 GCE A-levels & S-levels (Scholarship Level), 88-89 OSSD standard at the Virtual High School in attachments.
3. The candidate would like to retake the said finals to satisfy any examination.
4. The candidate is not a member of the syndicate of employment services of any sort at Queen¿¿s University.
5. The department of instruction is responsible for marking errors in examinations and its own bias (or preferences).
6. The PSYC100 coursework was completed to an A+ standard which is 60 of the course as seen in the attachments. The finals are a 40 proportion of the said course called PSYC100.
7. The PSYC100 course was taken on one previous occasion in 2012-2013 which had no final examinations, therefore, a statement about the candidate¿¿s ability based on incomplete courses would be biased.
8. The candidate would be willing to choose an alternative plan like Life Sciences that would entail either some psychology courses or the main suite of courses depending on the plan.

Analysis:

1. The PSYC100 examination analysis conducted by the candidate showed that there is severe inconsistency in the examiners¿¿ remarks. The examiners seemed to have ignored vast sections of the answer booklet in preference to their remarks.
(See attachments)
2. The department of Psychology was asked to review the examinations and also to speak to the candidate about the multiple choice on the 27th August 20154. There were discrepancies in this part of the review with at least 6 questions that could have been mistaken in the ¿Scantron¿¿ multiple choice section of the examination.
3. The department ignored all comments of review of 27th of August 2015 by neither physically remarking the examination, nor changing the grade.
4. As a result, the department of the said course would not provide any solution to the candidate¿¿s situation.
5. This unresolved examination shows a bias that is created by an unconscionable act of a subjectivist fallacy or discrimination under the code of conduct of the University.

Conclusion:

1. The final examination of PSCY100 should be reread by a local examiner with academic expertise in a double-blind fashion or unbiased way without the enterprise of the previous examiners comments to eliminate the inherent bias at Queen¿¿s University.