Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

New Information: Dear Board of Studies,

I am respectfully appealing the Associate Dean??s decision to deny my request to designate CISC271 (Winter, 2022) with a CR standing and receive an extension of an incomplete grade for CISC497 (Winter, 2022), on the grounds that the decision did not subscribe to rules of procedural fairness. Specifically, I feel that the Associate Dean failed to make a ??reasonable decision? in their response, that is, the decision for the petition is not ??based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from the facts,? as stated in relevant Faculty of Arts and Science guidelines on the appeals process. The reasons for which this decision is not ??reasonable? are one, the decision letter is not coherent in its presentation, and two, an explanation for the denial of an IN extension for CISC497 is not properly provided, and the details related to completion of coursework for CISC271 are not fully understood. For CISC271, these details are further elaborated in this letter, in consult with what was stated in the petition letter, i.e., the letter addressed to the Associate Dean, and the documentation attached to that letter. In alternate, summarized words, I feel that this decision is not ??reasonable? because of an incoherent outline of the decision reasoning and, based on what I am able to understand of the letter, an insufficient explanation to support the CISC497 request denial and non-holistic understanding of details of the CISC271 request.

Regarding the coherency of the petition decision letter, the Associate Dean appears to be jumbling the details of the two courses: details of CISC497 are applied toward the decision for CISC271, and details of CISC271 are applied toward the decision for CISC497. Please direct your attention to the paragraph starting with the following sentence, ??The extension of the Incomplete grade in CISC 497 was carefully considered due to the circumstances outlined as well as the documentation submitted, but the information I received from the instructor indicates that significant accommodation was given in that course during the term that it was offered.? In this particular sentence, the Associate Dean substantiates the denial of the CISC497 IN extension with a reason that is related to CISC271, not CISC497. Although accommodations were provided by Prof. Stinson, indicated in emails of ??CISC497_IN_Request,? in this professor??s input for the petition, which is the ??information? the Associate Dean is referencing in their decision letter, Prof. Stinson does not indicate that significant accommodations were provided. Prof. Ellis, however, does. The sentence that follows the ??The extension of Incomplete ? offered? sentence, which is understood to elaborate these referenced accommodations, is this: ??The instructor advised that the design of this course offered that the best 4 of the 5 tests grades be used and that for each test, the higher of the raw score and a decile rank was used.? This sentence is clearly relevant to CISC271, not CISC497. In fact, every single sentence of the paragraph, a paragraph which constitutes the entirety of the reasoning of the petition decision, is relevant to CISC271. Only the details of one, generous and reasonable time being provided for submissions of assignments and short quizzes and two, strategic neglect, are relevant to CISC497. These two details are sub-sentences that are being applied toward an ongoing explanation for CISC271. To completely understand and appreciate my concern of incoherency, I would respectfully emphasize that you carefully read my petition letter and subsequently read the decision letter that was received, which is attached as ??Petition_Associate_Dean_Decision_Letter.? In other words, both letters should be read with careful reference to one another.

Aside from the lack of coherency, based on my understanding of the Associate Dean??s decision letter, the denial of the extension of the IN designation for CISC497 is not substantiated, and, with reference to the attached documentation, details related to CISC271 are not entirely understood. Regarding CISC497, as mentioned above, no reasoning is apparent for this denial: the sentence ??The extension of Incomplete ? offered? uses reasoning related to CISC271, with the remaining decision explanation detailing CISC271 in entirety. Regarding clarification of why I am requesting a CR standing in CISC271, please allow me to separate the Associate Dean??s explanation into its distinct ideas and clarify the details of each one, and follow it with a stand-alone elaboration of my reasoning for the CISC271 CR request. Please note that clarifications are provided with reasoning ??based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from the facts.? The Associate Dean notes:

?? ??The instructor advised that the design of this course offered that the best 4 of the 5 tests grades be used and that for each test, the higher of the raw score and a decile rank was used.?
o This statement is correct, and the course syllabus, attached as documentation, indicates that this is the case. It was never made clear to me until late in the semester that deferrals of tests are not permitted under any circumstance. Further context related to tests is sparsely provided in subsequent bullet points below, and in full in the stand-alone explanation.
?? ??I understand that you wrote 3 of the 5 tests and submitted the first 4 assignments.?
o This is correct. I wrote three of the five tests because I was requiring deferrals for the remaining two tests, in particular, Test 2 and Test 3. A deferral was necessary for Test 5 as well, but this was still written, because upon writing of this test, I was told by Prof. Ellis that deferrals are not permitted under any circumstance.
?? ??You were granted an unusual extension for the 5th assignment but did not meet the extended deadline.?
o Although Prof. Ellis notes that an unusual extension was provided, I would like to sincerely emphasize that it was, in fact, not reasonably clear that such an extension was offered. To further understand the context related to Assignment 5, please refer to the sequence of events related to this assignment, noted in the stand-alone explanation of this letter.
?? ??As you note in your petition letter, you were given as much time as needed to complete missing coursework, namely, assignments and short quizzes.?
o This specific accommodation was provided by the professor of CISC497. For CISC271, significant accommodation on assignments was independently provided by the head TA. Deferrals of the tests of this course were not permitted, which was not made clear to me until the writing of Test 5, indicated in the document titled ??CISC271_Tests_Emails.?
?? ??Additionally, I understand that you were offered re-grading of the entire set of assessments but that you respectfully declined the offer.?
o To be clear, as noted in the initial email of ??CISC271_Final_Assignment_Emails,? my request was a re-grading of only Assignments 2-4, not the full set of assessments in the course. Reading the professor??s response to this request, I respectfully rescinded this because I reasonably felt that the professor would exercise bias towards assessment of this work, which I was not inclined to communicate directly to them. This feeling that bias would be applied was based on the professor presenting a policy on extensions never indicated to me or the class prior to this April 19th email, their overall inability to be clear regarding whether deferrals or similar accommodations for tests were permitted, as well as, in this email, their use of the word ??self-described? to portray my extenuating health circumstances. These circumstances were not subjective. I would have been willing to request a re-mark of these assignments from a basis of 0 marks had I felt that there was no legitimate reason for bias.
?? ??Unfortunately, I cannot support the petition based on that input and since you made a strategic decision to neglect the course.?
o The strategic neglect was applied to CISC497, not CISC271. I studied material for CISC271 on a highly consistent basis. Please note that the strategic neglect for CISC497 does not mean that I abandoned studying of this course; this means that my allocation of effort towards this course was lowest, relative to remaining courses.

In general, the reasoning for the CISC271 CR request outlined in my petition letter, i.e., the letter written to the Associate Dean, was that this professor did not accommodate to the extent that was warranted: Prof. Ellis was unable to allow deferrals of the onQ tests, or offer accommodations in place of these deferrals that Prof. Ellis and I both would have felt been appropriate, such as applying a re-weighting of assessments on condition of a ??pass? or ??fail? completion of tests, or a replacement cumulative final exam at the end of the term. For tests, the inability to provide deferrals under any circumstance was never made clear to me until the writing of Test 5, indicated in ??CISC271_Tests_Emails,? with the statement by Prof. Ellis, ??Correct on the non deferral.? In addition to the document ??CISC271_A2_Submission,? ??CISC271_Tests_Emails? outlines the full series of requests for test deferrals in the course. To provide details around these requests, whether or not deferrals were permitted was not clear, as each request was met with statements I felt were either imprecise or unsupportive or both, such as ??You are right that your hope is of Don Quixote,? or ??We do not compose or offer make-up tests in this course,? which should have been supplemented with a statement such as ??even for students having an accommodated need for such tests.? On the matter of tests, the CISC271 syllabus states that the ??course uses principles of ?universal design?? for tests so, academic consideration is not provided for tests,? which was not interpreted to be the same as deferrals of tests or similar action being impermissible, in the context of an academic accommodation. While ??universal design? does improve accessibility, I feel that it does not remove the necessity to accommodate students. The syllabus also states that ??no request for re-weighting or additional work will be granted other than for extenuating circumstances as described in the Faculty policy on academic consideration,? which indicates that the professor would have technically been willing to consider re-weighting if a presence of extenuating circumstances was indicated. This attitude was not reflected by the professor in our email exchanges.

Secondly, the professor also chose not to accept the final assignment, based on a course policy which was never introduced in any manner until late in the semester, i.e., in the April 19th email shown in ??CISC271_Final_Assignment_Emails.? To provide context regarding the sequence of events for the submission of Assignment 5 of CISC271:

?? The head TA provided longer than 1-week extensions for Assignments 2-4, as indicated in relevant attached documentation. With this in mind, I logically assumed that a similar extension would be offered for Assignment 5.
?? I emailed the head TA on April 7th to clarify the date until which I would be able to submit the assignment. This date was April 22nd. This email is indicated in ??CISC271_Head_TA_Final_Assignment_Emails.?
?? On April 19th, indicated in ??CISC271_Final_Assignment_Emails,? I emailed Prof. Ellis asking for clarification regarding whether it would be possible to submit until the 22nd, given the professor??s recent onQ announcement regarding the upload of final course grades onto SOLUS. Prof. Ellis responded with the course policy on extensions, which was never indicated in any manner in the course until this response. The extension was denied in this email.
?? Upon denial of the extension, my QSAS advisor reached out to Prof. Ellis to support my request. In follow-up to my QSAS advisor??s support, Prof. Ellis stated: ??Thank you for this additional information. I have no further questions.? On reading this email at the time (and now, as well), it was unequivocally unclear as to whether the extension until April 22nd was indeed allowed. The high stress levels from this situation at the time did not place me in a position to handle the matter in a non-emotional state, so I was not inclined to email Prof. Ellis for clarification on what this statement meant.
?? On April 22nd morning, I was experiencing severe symptoms that necessitated emergency medical assistance. I was subsequently hospitalized at Kingston General Hospital, with advisement to receive complete bedrest at home for 48 continuous hours. I was not able to complete Assignment 5 by the extended deadline of April 22nd, if such extension was indeed offered. Only recently, upon reading Prof. Ellis??s petition input while preparing this appeal letter, was an understanding cemented that this extension was, in fact, offered, even though the situation has generally been considered unclear.

If there is an inclination to grant the CR request, I would propose that, to demonstrate the completion of work requirement of Academic Petitions and Appeals Regulation 3.3.1.4, a CR standing be granted on condition of acceptance of the completed final assignment within two weeks following notification of the appeal decision. I would be willing to write the remaining two tests as well, if necessary. To address Prof. Ellis??s concerns in their input, I would emphatically favour a complete re-design or re-composition of these three assessments. I seriously value Queen??s principles of academic integrity. I steadfastly believe, effectively articulated in relevant policy writings of the University of Toronto, that ??academic integrity is essential to the pursuit of learning and scholarship in a university, and to ensuring that a degree from Queen??s is a strong signal of each student??s individual academic achievement.?

As a concluding note, I would like to mention that my performance in these two courses is not a reasonable reflection of my academic abilities or efforts. The year of 2022 has been, by far, the most distressing period of my life and has disproportionately impacted my academic performance in the courses of this appeal. I am doing my absolute best to manage my ongoing challenges, as well as minimize their impacts on performance. In addition to utilizing supports such as QSAS and SWS, in Fall 2022, for the first time, I completed a reduced course load of three, and this Winter 2023, I am completing an even further reduced load of two. Please note that my lack of coursework in Fall 2021 was due to an internship in industry, and that the failing grade in STAT268 of Fall 2022 is due to another unexpected, documented circumstance, for which I am working with academic advisors to petition. The grades of CISC497, CISC271, and STAT268 are anomalies in a broader picture of academic improvement over the course of my undergraduate degree, with excellence in the latter half. Without these three courses applied as completion of units toward my enrollment at Queen??s, my approximated cumulative grade point average is 3.7/4.3, with 4.0/4.3 achieved in the latter half.

With kindness, respect, and great humility,
Anshul Pattoo