Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: I am requesting an appeal for review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examinations and/or term work because my grade was deflated when pairing the rubric with instructor feedback. My final performance for MUSC 321 has been marked as a 78 which stands as a B+ on the Rubric for Marking Juries and Lessons 2021.
According to the rubric, an A- or 80 is described as follows; A-, Outstanding performance of at least one work, and very good performance of the remainder. Very good interpretation of character and style. Technical facility meets repertoire demands most of the time. Reliable memory work, when required and no serious continuity problems.
A B+ is described as; B+, Very good performance across the board, generally well prepared showing good understanding of musical aspects, style. Tonal quality and communication are very good. Technical facility meets repertoire demands most of the time, and performance generally has good continuity.
As you can see the primary difference between an A- and a B+ is that there is evidence of at least one outstanding piece. I will argue based on what is written in the rubric as to why I should have received at least an A- standing in this final exam. I have included all feedback quotes received on Monday May 3rd, 2021 for this application¿¿s evidence.

Vocal Juries are marked by two jurors who pick two pieces out of six pieces for review, and the student choses one as well. This totals three pieces under review.

I believe I should have received at least an 80 due to the following quotes received by my jurors. First selection, Paper Wings: you clearly understand its poetic meanings A wonderful selection for you- Colleen Renihan
Your English diction is good and the sung W and expressive consonant work extremely well. Your voice is sounding wonderful, and you can hear the development that you have made. You are demonstrating some beautiful expressive, and legato singing in this piece. - Darrell Christie.
The only negative comments for Paper Wings are more of a personal opinion on my interpretation from Professor Christie, and then on my execution of technique throughout this selection from Dr. Renihan. One can see how the comment from Dr. Renihan is in contrast with Prof. Christie's above compliment of technical development. These comments are motivated by personal preference causing them to be subjective and relatively void in the marking process. I believe that this performance of Paper Wings should have been describe as outstanding due to the above comments, therefore granting me an A- standing.
Evidence in the following quotes: This is a lovely selection for you, but I think it¿¿s under-sung in general. Despite the fact that it¿¿s a lullaby, the support should still be there. The most successful part of this is mm. 15 -17, followed by mm. 37-39, where you are using your full voice on the breath, and the throat doesn¿¿t get involved. -Colleen Renihan
I am wondering if the ¿¿Startled¿ sections could sound even more startled There are a few staccato markings that you miss, and I think having some shorter, sharper attacks would add to the drama. - Darrell Christie


Second selection, Je Te Veux: Very good sense of the style of this song Again at the beginning of this, I would sing more on the breath. I think the pp dynamic, and the ¿¿retenir¿ indication is just not a great idea at this point in your technical development. As the song gets going, you do a great job of singing into these lines, and allowing the sound to blossom over the tops of the phrases, such as at the bottom of p.42. The French is generally very good; I really love the slightly nasalized and more closed epsilon sound you use in the middle of the voice on words like ¿¿caresse¿ and ¿¿sagesse¿ etc. More of this - Colleen Renihan

Again, some good singing here, Serena. In particular you navigate the ascending passage on pg. 40 well as you move through your vocal range. I think there is a little more you can do dynamically in this piece. I understand that the opening dynamic is pp but I think you could sing with come support throughout some of these quieter sections. The loud G the second time through could be crescendod to more, so that it feels like the highest point of a growing line rather than an accent. The French diction is good throughout. I think you could connect the pickups a little more to the phrases. The phrases are very legato and connected, but the pickups don¿¿t always feel part of the legato line. - Darrell Christie

As you can see in the above quotes from both Dr. Renihan and Prof. Christie, that I have successfully achieved the Very good interpretation of character and style. Technical facility meets repertoire demands most of the time. Reliable memory work, when required and no serious continuity problems of the A- standing in the rubric for a performed selection. In Dr. Ranihan¿¿s comments she points out that in her opinion I should not be singing at a pp (pianissimo - very quiet or soft) dynamic because my technique is not developed enough. I have discussed this statement with my personal lesson instructor who has watched my jury. She and I agree that this statement is rather offensive and not supported, as we both believe I sang those lines expressively and successfully at the written pp markings. My instructor and I agree that there is only one moment in this entire piece where my technique is inhibited by my throat and it is in the very last note of the entire piece. This was due to a moment release of focus because I was excited to have successfully completed the piece. There is no evidence throughout the piece that I cannot sing at a pianissimo (very quiet or soft) volume. To further contest this idea that I am not technically developed enough is that there are different schools of thought within vocal pedagogy. Particularly my lesson instructor and I have focused on creating a focused sound rather than a large sound. It seems as though Darrell and Colleen would prefer a larger sound. There is also the issue that the voice develops differently at varying times for different people. Most voices in women do not fully develop until the age range of 25 to around 30. I am 21. To base all the weighting of my performance on technical perception, which has demonstrated in my jurors¿¿ comments to be contrasting, is disappointing and unfair. Without the volume criticism, Dr. Renihan's comments would suggest that Je Te Veux is an outstanding piece.
Looking at Darrell Christie's comments, he suggests that I add more dynamic emphasis to my performance of Je Te Veux and then he mentions that he feels the pick-ups do not always feel connected. These comments are constructive, but they do not dismiss the A- requirements of Very good interpretation of character and style. Technical facility meets repertoire demands most of the time. Reliable memory work, when required and no serious continuity problems..
Overall, Je Te Veux could have been considered an outstanding piece.

On to the Final selection, Batti, Batti, o Bel Masetto: This is a very successful presentation of this song. Again, I would continue on the journey of finding the ideal resonating space for your voice and staying with it. Also some musical details such as the coordination with the piano at the top of p.53, and the bottom of p.54 (there are no mm. s in your score). I think this second section is too slow. Love the double t¿¿s, rolled r¿¿s, and the Italian in general is very good
Lovely to hear you, Serena Great repertoire for you, and it¿¿s really exciting to see you progress so nicely. - Colleen Renihan

You open with a good recit here. I am wondering if you could incorporate a little more vowel into some of the notes. I know that this is a recit style, but I think there is the opportunity to hear more of your voice. It sounds like you sing different text at the bottom of pg. 51. I think in general in this piece, there is the opportunity to hear more of your voice. The f top notes are well supported for the most part on the first few pages, but it doesn¿¿t always sound like this support continues down throughout your range. I would think of adding more weight and support throughout your registers so that we can hear more of your voice coming through throughout your entire range. Congratulations on some great vocal development - Darrell Christie

In the final section of Batti, Batti, o Bel Masetto, Darrell Christie and Colleen Renihan's comments suggest a very good performance within the A- requirements. This piece in particular is weaker than that of Paper Wings and Je Te Veux, but not weak enough to bring my mark down to a B+ rather than a A-. Dr. Renihan continues to suggest that my technique needs to be further developed while Darrell Christie congratulates me on some great vocal development. Again, there is contradiction between both party¿¿s idea of my level of technical development. Darrell in particular focuses on how he thinks I could add more weight and support to my voice in hopes, that I will have a more balanced and full sound throughout this piece. His comments do not dismiss the performance marking it as unsuccessful.
Both Parties state positive comments that fit under the very good performance requirements; comments such as This is a very successful presentation of this song, love the double t¿¿s, rolled r¿¿s, and the Italian in general is very good - Colleen Renihan
You open with a good recit here, Congratulations on some great vocal development - Darrell Christie


My motivation for requesting an appeal is that in the Music Department we have an opportunity that is called a Double Credit Audition. Upon successfully completing a Double Credit Audition with a high enough score, students will be enrolled into the MUSC X25 stream of Applied Study. This is important because these students are given extra opportunities such as longer lesson times, more performance opportunities, and end of year recitals. In the case of Covid 19 restrictions and online learning, the requirements for a Double Credit Audition have been adjusted to allow more students to qualify. To reiterate, adjustments were made because juries would normally be a live performance of three pieces with a live accompanist. This year¿¿s juries unfortunately had to be recorded at home or at a supplied location where the student were allotted only one session of three hours to record with a microphone and pre-recorded accompaniment. Students had to record all six pieces. I am one of the students that was able to record at a supplied location but unfortunately, I ran out of time to record all of my pieces in the venue. Because of this, Batti, Batti, o Bel Masetto was recorded in my small home with unforgiving acoustics. The requirements for dc are as follows; A student would need to be recommended by their area coordinator, and lesson instructor, as well as receiving an A- on their most recent Jury. Due to the fact that I have received a mark that is a 78 on my jury, I am 2 away from qualifying for this audition opportunity. I am devastated. I have been working tirelessly this year as it is my last chance to qualify for Double Credit and I have received an 87 as my final instructor grade for all of my hard work this year. To miss out on this opportunity because I have been wrongly evaluated is unfair and devastating. I am an involved member of our Queens community with a high academic standing, and I am a biracial student of colour. I often feel that I am discriminated against and I lose opportunity because I of the way I look. This may not always be the case and I am not suggesting that it is the case in this request, but I would like my identity to be considered because I am one of the very few women of colour within the vocal department. I want to be an Opera Singer and I actively reach out and work on all performing aspects of being a classical singer. Not having access to the only academic performing opportunity at Queens is theft, as I have clearly demonstrated skill that is worthy of opportunities such as the Double Credit Audition in my undergrad.