Petition Letter
Hello,
I am writing this letter concerning my Adam and Eve: A Case Study 2 in REPD 372. I have several points to make about the over-stringent grading of my sections. I will currently address the regrade that I received.
The TA who marked my paper was unclear on the why they deducted (17.5/30) for my section on Male and Female Factor Infertility. I should presume that given this section is on male and female factor infertility, half of the points were awarded for discussing factors of infertility for the two sexes. Given the TA only said one statement about male facotr infertility, that would mean that part was likely sufficient (~14 - 13 marks). That means the TA only awarded (2.5 - 3.5) marks for my discussion on female factor infertility. To summarize their rationale for taking off marks that:
1. My discussion of testicular trauma was not sufficient (their only point on male factor infertility)
2. My discussion of age should mention its impact on the quality of oocytes
3. More details on the molecular level of chlamydia was required
I do not agree with their first point. I have half a paragraph describing testicular trauma. I stated it depended on the location and gave an example of consequences if damage was done to the epididymis
I agree with the second point. I did not mention the quality of oocytes and I only discussed declining oocyte count with increasing age. Although it is not clear the number of points they took off here.
I did mention that chlamydia caused an occlusion and this was addressed by the TA. However, it is not clear the number of marks that they took off here.
Another section that I want to discuss is why I received a (18/30) on my section about Assistive Reproductive Technologies. I am unsure if this section deserved to lose 12 marks. The main points that the TA bolded were my lack of mentioning that recurrent implantation failure uses
I am writing this letter concerning my Adam and Eve: A Case Study 2 in REPD 372. I have several points to make about the over-stringent grading of my sections. I will currently address the regrade that I received.
The TA who marked my paper was unclear on the why they deducted (17.5/30) for my section on Male and Female Factor Infertility. I should presume that given this section is on male and female factor infertility, half of the points were awarded for discussing factors of infertility for the two sexes. Given the TA only said one statement about male facotr infertility, that would mean that part was likely sufficient (~14 - 13 marks). That means the TA only awarded (2.5 - 3.5) marks for my discussion on female factor infertility. To summarize their rationale for taking off marks that:
1. My discussion of testicular trauma was not sufficient (their only point on male factor infertility)
2. My discussion of age should mention its impact on the quality of oocytes
3. More details on the molecular level of chlamydia was required
I do not agree with their first point. I have half a paragraph describing testicular trauma. I stated it depended on the location and gave an example of consequences if damage was done to the epididymis
I agree with the second point. I did not mention the quality of oocytes and I only discussed declining oocyte count with increasing age. Although it is not clear the number of points they took off here.
I did mention that chlamydia caused an occlusion and this was addressed by the TA. However, it is not clear the number of marks that they took off here.
Another section that I want to discuss is why I received a (18/30) on my section about Assistive Reproductive Technologies. I am unsure if this section deserved to lose 12 marks. The main points that the TA bolded were my lack of mentioning that recurrent implantation failure uses