Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 7023
Submitted: October 24, 2020 at 1:54:03 PM
First Name: Cameron
Last Name: Howes
Student Number: 10195840
Email: 15cmh1@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BSH
Plan: LISC
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Code: PHAR 480
Term: Fall
Year: 2020
Petition Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor's Name: Terrence Ozolins
Component: Assessment 1
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: I believe a rubric based error was made when grading my assignment 1 for PHAR480. The assessment was to suggest and defend two ways of alleviating pressures on the pharmaceutical industry.
After emailing my course instructors, they were not corrected so I would like to apply for an appeal.
I lost marks in my ¿¿Background¿ section for not discussing factors of Eroom¿¿s law or attrition but, I explained the, throw money at it tendency, basic research brute force bias and I explain the better than the Beatles problem twice. I believe that my paraphrasing may have been misread.
I also discuss attrition causes several times within my assessment, such as drug efficacy issues and the high attrition associated with original drug research. However, I believe that my T.A may have missed these or misread them.
I lost marks in the ¿¿Report Quality¿ section for exceeding the word limit and therefore lost 5 marks, in accordance with assessment overview. However, the limit was 500 words +/- 10 and I was below 550.
After emailing my course instructors about these issues, I was given an additional 3 marks for the ¿¿Report Quality¿ section instead of five and was given additional feedback for the ¿¿Suggestions for Improvement¿ section.
Since the only issue with my ¿¿Report Quality¿ was the word limit, I would like full marks in this section since I did not exceed it.
I lost marks in the ¿¿Suggestions for Improvement¿ section because I did not provide a second suggestion. However, my second suggestion was ¿¿A partnership between public funded research and pharmaceutical industries¿. I supported this by talking about how it would help reduce attrition rates and paraphrased the factors of Eroom¿¿s Law.
e.g. A better understanding of a drug¿¿s mechanism of action will provide evidence of the drug¿¿s efficacy and reduce attrition rates at the later stages
e.g. ¿¿basic research brute force bias¿: these institutions can research evidence of more innovative, mechanisms of action, lead chemicals and pathways of disease
e.g. ¿¿Throw money at it Tendency¿: The decline in drug production can also be attributed to the attitude of companies to hope problems are solved with increased spending
After emailing my course instructors, they were not corrected so I would like to apply for an appeal.
I lost marks in my ¿¿Background¿ section for not discussing factors of Eroom¿¿s law or attrition but, I explained the, throw money at it tendency, basic research brute force bias and I explain the better than the Beatles problem twice. I believe that my paraphrasing may have been misread.
I also discuss attrition causes several times within my assessment, such as drug efficacy issues and the high attrition associated with original drug research. However, I believe that my T.A may have missed these or misread them.
I lost marks in the ¿¿Report Quality¿ section for exceeding the word limit and therefore lost 5 marks, in accordance with assessment overview. However, the limit was 500 words +/- 10 and I was below 550.
After emailing my course instructors about these issues, I was given an additional 3 marks for the ¿¿Report Quality¿ section instead of five and was given additional feedback for the ¿¿Suggestions for Improvement¿ section.
Since the only issue with my ¿¿Report Quality¿ was the word limit, I would like full marks in this section since I did not exceed it.
I lost marks in the ¿¿Suggestions for Improvement¿ section because I did not provide a second suggestion. However, my second suggestion was ¿¿A partnership between public funded research and pharmaceutical industries¿. I supported this by talking about how it would help reduce attrition rates and paraphrased the factors of Eroom¿¿s Law.
e.g. A better understanding of a drug¿¿s mechanism of action will provide evidence of the drug¿¿s efficacy and reduce attrition rates at the later stages
e.g. ¿¿basic research brute force bias¿: these institutions can research evidence of more innovative, mechanisms of action, lead chemicals and pathways of disease
e.g. ¿¿Throw money at it Tendency¿: The decline in drug production can also be attributed to the attitude of companies to hope problems are solved with increased spending
Documentation
Professional Letter Detail: N/A
Documentation Detail: N/A
Decision Letters
History
Originally submitted October 24, 2020 at 1:54:03 PM.
| Field | Reference | Old Value | New Value | Note | User | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| status | N/A | Received | Incomplete | Spring Forsberg | 2020-10-26 10:26:21 AM | |
| status | N/A | Incomplete | In Review | Spring Forsberg | 2020-11-02 2:41:42 PM | |
| status | N/A | In Review | Denied | Spring Forsberg | 2020-11-23 8:55:39 AM | |
| associate_dean | N/A | Jenn Stephenson, Ph.D. | Spring Forsberg | 2020-11-23 8:55:39 AM | ||
| decision_letter | N/A | N/A | Decision letter sent | Spring Forsberg | 2020-11-23 8:56:22 AM |

