Petition Letter
Dear Associate Dean,
I am petitioning the grading decision of Catherine Dhavernas on my final project for FREN 331 Winter 2025.
I believe this grading decision is not reasonable. The primary reason cited for the lack of grade improvement from my first draft to the final submission was that I failed to incorporate the instructor’s initial feedback.
In response, I requested an informal review in which I outlined my understanding of the feedback and explained how I applied it in the final version. Based on both written and verbal feedback, I understood the key areas for revision to be: making the narration feel less robotic, grounding the story in realistic character development, and delivering a surprising twist.
In response, I revised the story accordingly: I preserved the obsessive tone but improved the flow (e.g., detailed, manic narration), grounded the narrative in a more tangible reality (e.g., the protagonist’s mental illness as a root of the horror), and refined the pacing to build suspense leading to the final reveal (e.g., the supernatural elements were fabrications of an unreliable narrator).
Despite my explanation and clarification that rewriting the story does not equate to ignoring her comments, the instructor maintained that I failed to understand and incorporate the initial feedback.
Thankyou,
Sarah
I am petitioning the grading decision of Catherine Dhavernas on my final project for FREN 331 Winter 2025.
I believe this grading decision is not reasonable. The primary reason cited for the lack of grade improvement from my first draft to the final submission was that I failed to incorporate the instructor’s initial feedback.
In response, I requested an informal review in which I outlined my understanding of the feedback and explained how I applied it in the final version. Based on both written and verbal feedback, I understood the key areas for revision to be: making the narration feel less robotic, grounding the story in realistic character development, and delivering a surprising twist.
In response, I revised the story accordingly: I preserved the obsessive tone but improved the flow (e.g., detailed, manic narration), grounded the narrative in a more tangible reality (e.g., the protagonist’s mental illness as a root of the horror), and refined the pacing to build suspense leading to the final reveal (e.g., the supernatural elements were fabrications of an unreliable narrator).
Despite my explanation and clarification that rewriting the story does not equate to ignoring her comments, the instructor maintained that I failed to understand and incorporate the initial feedback.
Thankyou,
Sarah