Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: I would like to contest my mid-term marks that I received in MICR 386.
I had several issues with marking scheme for short answers and strongly believe that despite providing the correct and adequate details, I have been penalized significantly, and thus my mid-term mark has fallen to 81.9.
On 3 of the short answer questions, the marks that have been deducted were for things that, in my opinion, the question did not ask for. The expectation to include these peripheral details are not implicit in the questions. I have already raised my concerns directly with the Professor and sent him a very detailed email identifying my concerns. However, the professor has dismissed my concerns and the explanation that he has provided did not make sense to me.
I have heard that other students have also complained to the Professor, but so far, he has dismissed every concern and has not revised anything. In my time here at Queens, I've never asked had to ask for something like this involving the reconsideration of an exam. However, in this case, I feel like the professors marking of our exam has been unreasonable. The only recourse I have is to bring it to your attention, so that the situation can be resolved.

I am disputing three questions, where I feel that marks have been erroneously deducted. I enclose the specific details of each concern, which I have brought forth to the professor.


1. On question 11, which asked you to design your own multiple-choice question, the prompt only asked to provide 4 choices, which represent steps in B-cell development. There was no indication in the question as to how much detail needed to be included in each statement, and furthermore, there was never any prior examples provided as to the detail that should be included when answering this type of question on the exam. Therefore, as requested in the question, I provided 4 steps in B-cell development, which are all correct. However, for each one of my choices, significant marks have been removed for not mentioning the stage of B cell development at which they occur as well. I feel it is unfair to remove marks for these specifications when they were not requested for at all in the question. My response answers the question correctly based on what was actually asked for. Nowhere in the question does it request or imply to specify the stage of B-cell development for each answer as well. If the professor wanted these details, the question should have been: name 4 critical steps in B-cell development and the stage at which they occur.

2. Another problem I have is on question 13. In this question, there was a diagram of large stretch of DNA, and the question asked to describe the process involved in the generation of a defined heavy chain sequence. This required the explanation of the entire process of VJ and VDJ rearrangement, RSS sequence recognition, RNA processing, and class switching to IgE. I wrote an answer of more than 200 words, correctly detailing all of these processes. However, here I was deducted 2/10 marks, while the only feedback I have received is that I did not mention that class-switching from IgM to IgE has to go through an IgG intermediary. This again seems to be an excessive loss of marks for one minor detail, as I did cover the entire mechanism of class switching. Furthermore, the actual question was based on the overall process of producing an entire heavy chain with a given sequence, and the entire mechanism of class switching was only one part of the needed response. Therefore, deducting 2/10 marks, which represents 20 of the answer for not mentioning one minor intermediary step of class switching (which in itself is only a small part of the whole answer) is excessive. In my opinion, if a detail like this was part of the rubric, it should have been worth 0.5 marks at the most. In fact, for a minor detail like this, the professor himself usually only allocates 0.5 marks.

3. On question 14, I think the entire question and marking scheme is, in my opinion, very unclear and unreasonable. The question itself was centered on explaining allelic exclusion. However, looking at the feedback, it seems that significant marks were taken off for not mentioning peripheral aspects. For example, marks were taken off for not mentioning polyadenylation, something that happens during the RNA processing of the heavy and light chains. Similarly, marks were lost for not mentioning class switching, again something that happens during the creation of the heavy chain. Furthermore, more marks were deducted for not mentioning clonal deletion and receptor editing, processes by which self-reactive B cells are deleted. I can't see how these processes are integral to describing allelic exclusion, which is what the question was specifically asking about. In my answer to the question, I have explained in detail, in 200 words, the specific process of allelic exclusion. To be able to include all the other peripheral processes that the professor seems to want, which are not implied at all in the question, would likely require a substantially longer answer. I don't understand how I could be expected to have added substantially more peripheral information, as it was not implied in the question. Furthermore, the entire exam had to be completed in 60 minutes and had a total of 58 marks, and therefore time was a constraint as well. In my opinion, a description of allelic exclusion does not require an explanation of the additional process mentioned above.


In responding to my concerns, the professor talked about the past-history of the course including the fact that the midterm average was historically 85. However, the average of the mid-term was much lower this year, and the delivery of the course was also very different. Therefore, given the current circumstances, I do not think that any comparison can be made to the past and it is unfair for students to use that as an argument to not adjust midterm marks when the course has completely changed this year. I hope I have adequately explained my concerns regarding the marking on the midterm exam and why I felt it was unreasonable. As a lot of students in this class have raised issues with this midterm to the professor and yet no change has been made, I'm sending you this email in hopes that this situation can be resolved.