Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 11856
Submitted: May 8, 2024 at 2:33:37 AM
First Name: Jacqueline
Last Name: Ryan
Pronoun: She/Her
Preferred Name: Jackie
Student Number: 20176666
Email: jacqueline776@icloud.com
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: PHIL
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: PHIL 351
Term: Winter
Year: 2024
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Andrew Lopez
Section/Class Number: 5430 - 001
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: To the Associate Dean of Queen's University,
I am petitioning my course final grade for PHIL 351 on two counts. The first is the very extreme extenuating circumstances I dealt with this semester (I am in the process of receiving supporting documentation from my QSAS advisor for this). The second is seemingly unfair grading throughout the course from the instructor.
This semester was the final one for my undergraduate degree. Unfortunately, I was experiencing some very taxing extenuating circumstances simultaneously throughout the entire semester that worked to affect my academic performance. I have been in the process of applying for law school, and the delayed/lack of responses from the law schools I applied to certainly impacted my mental health. I was consumed by fear and anxiety (and still am as I wait for a response from Queen’s Law), which negatively influenced my time-management, motivation, and resolve. More importantly, however, I have also been dealing with multiple family-related problems this semester that were also mentally-draining. My brother recently came forward to my family that he experienced child sexual abuse, and so much of my time and energy subsequently became devoted to supporting him in any ways possible. I was constantly going back home to Oshawa from Kingston to be with him and my mother during this semester, which affected my class participation (which is usually quite high). I also had to be home with my family because we have been gearing up for my Father's murder trial, which has been ongoing since April 8th. I have been preparing my Victim Impact Statement to deliver at this trial in the event of sentencing, which has been a major struggle. Court has taken place twice a week since April 8th, which I have been attended with my mother all while I was in my exam period. The information discussed at court is indescribably difficult to sit through. The course assignments in PHIL 351 saw many small, weekly hand ins worth 1% of the grade per week. I sometimes could not get to these each week due to the ongoing strain on my mental state resultant of all the personal issues I was juggling (or just simply because of how much of my time was consumed by them).
Ultimately, these extenuating circumstances have worked to wear my mental health down severely. They took my time and energy away from my academic pursuits, both due to their high demand of mental energy and also due to the way they were very upsetting and discouraging for me to experience. If I was not experiencing them at this time, then I would have undoubtedly performed much better in this class as I would have had much more time to devote to it. I have appended a letter from my QSAS advisor to this petition that will validate my claims of impaired mental health, as it is this impaired mental health that has directly impacted my ability to perform better in this class. Since I am still under consideration for Law School at Queen's, I also fear that having such a low grade and GPA this semester will impact my continued consideration. I desperately need this mark changed to a credit standing in order to reflect my poor mental health for this reason.
Despite my extenuating circumstances being so gruelling, I was still able to come through with decent enough marks in my other classes. The reason why I am petitioning this grade in particular is because this is my worst mark, and this is mark is impacted by more than just my personal situation. It has been agreed upon by multiple students in PHIL 351 that there was seemingly unfair grading on the part of the professor for this class, Professor Andrew Lopez. The first reason for this unfair grading has to do with the course work expected in the class. The assignments due throughout the semester consisted of 10 participation questions of 2-3 sentences, two short assignments of 250 words (and two respective peer reviews of another student's short assignments), one long assignment of 500 words, and a final assessment of 3 essays of 500 words (1500 words overall). The participation questions were Pass/Fail, and the professor would oftentimes fail your question without any explanation. He remarked consistently in class that he was not in the practice of offering feedback, which is reflected in his distribution of assignment grades and is very unfair.
For the larger assignments, it was in my experience that the professor did offer feedback for marks under 80%. However, it was only ever a suggestion to further elaborate on ideas presented, but the assignment parameters with such low word counts make that extremely difficult and resultantly unreasonable. He also, in my experience, did not offer any remedial grading opportunities for these assignments. There are multiple other students that feel this way about the grading process in this class. I have appended a petition agreement that reflects a shared understanding that the grading in PHIL 351 was seemingly unreasonable.
Ultimately, both my extenuating circumstances and the unfair grading process of the professor led to a course grade in PHIL 351 that does not reflect my true academic potential. Both of these issues directly lowered my grade for valid reasons that were out of my control, and it is my hope that a Credit Standing will replace my mark in order to better accommodate for my experiences this semester.
I am petitioning my course final grade for PHIL 351 on two counts. The first is the very extreme extenuating circumstances I dealt with this semester (I am in the process of receiving supporting documentation from my QSAS advisor for this). The second is seemingly unfair grading throughout the course from the instructor.
This semester was the final one for my undergraduate degree. Unfortunately, I was experiencing some very taxing extenuating circumstances simultaneously throughout the entire semester that worked to affect my academic performance. I have been in the process of applying for law school, and the delayed/lack of responses from the law schools I applied to certainly impacted my mental health. I was consumed by fear and anxiety (and still am as I wait for a response from Queen’s Law), which negatively influenced my time-management, motivation, and resolve. More importantly, however, I have also been dealing with multiple family-related problems this semester that were also mentally-draining. My brother recently came forward to my family that he experienced child sexual abuse, and so much of my time and energy subsequently became devoted to supporting him in any ways possible. I was constantly going back home to Oshawa from Kingston to be with him and my mother during this semester, which affected my class participation (which is usually quite high). I also had to be home with my family because we have been gearing up for my Father's murder trial, which has been ongoing since April 8th. I have been preparing my Victim Impact Statement to deliver at this trial in the event of sentencing, which has been a major struggle. Court has taken place twice a week since April 8th, which I have been attended with my mother all while I was in my exam period. The information discussed at court is indescribably difficult to sit through. The course assignments in PHIL 351 saw many small, weekly hand ins worth 1% of the grade per week. I sometimes could not get to these each week due to the ongoing strain on my mental state resultant of all the personal issues I was juggling (or just simply because of how much of my time was consumed by them).
Ultimately, these extenuating circumstances have worked to wear my mental health down severely. They took my time and energy away from my academic pursuits, both due to their high demand of mental energy and also due to the way they were very upsetting and discouraging for me to experience. If I was not experiencing them at this time, then I would have undoubtedly performed much better in this class as I would have had much more time to devote to it. I have appended a letter from my QSAS advisor to this petition that will validate my claims of impaired mental health, as it is this impaired mental health that has directly impacted my ability to perform better in this class. Since I am still under consideration for Law School at Queen's, I also fear that having such a low grade and GPA this semester will impact my continued consideration. I desperately need this mark changed to a credit standing in order to reflect my poor mental health for this reason.
Despite my extenuating circumstances being so gruelling, I was still able to come through with decent enough marks in my other classes. The reason why I am petitioning this grade in particular is because this is my worst mark, and this is mark is impacted by more than just my personal situation. It has been agreed upon by multiple students in PHIL 351 that there was seemingly unfair grading on the part of the professor for this class, Professor Andrew Lopez. The first reason for this unfair grading has to do with the course work expected in the class. The assignments due throughout the semester consisted of 10 participation questions of 2-3 sentences, two short assignments of 250 words (and two respective peer reviews of another student's short assignments), one long assignment of 500 words, and a final assessment of 3 essays of 500 words (1500 words overall). The participation questions were Pass/Fail, and the professor would oftentimes fail your question without any explanation. He remarked consistently in class that he was not in the practice of offering feedback, which is reflected in his distribution of assignment grades and is very unfair.
For the larger assignments, it was in my experience that the professor did offer feedback for marks under 80%. However, it was only ever a suggestion to further elaborate on ideas presented, but the assignment parameters with such low word counts make that extremely difficult and resultantly unreasonable. He also, in my experience, did not offer any remedial grading opportunities for these assignments. There are multiple other students that feel this way about the grading process in this class. I have appended a petition agreement that reflects a shared understanding that the grading in PHIL 351 was seemingly unreasonable.
Ultimately, both my extenuating circumstances and the unfair grading process of the professor led to a course grade in PHIL 351 that does not reflect my true academic potential. Both of these issues directly lowered my grade for valid reasons that were out of my control, and it is my hope that a Credit Standing will replace my mark in order to better accommodate for my experiences this semester.
Documentation
Professional Letter: PHIL 351 Petition QSAS Letter of Support.pdf
Document: PHIL 351 Petition Agreement.docx
Decision Letters
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 273
Submitted: June 28, 2024 at 6:41:58 AM
Relevant Petition: 11856
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: PHIL 351, Winter 2024 (Andrew Lopez)
Appeal Grounds
Appeals to the Board of Studies must include a letter based on one or more of the Grounds for Appeal (Appeal Regulation 3.4). What are the grounds you are basing your appeal on?
- The Associate Dean's decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as the Associate Dean failed to:
- Follow the university rules and regulations in a way that supported your right to a fair process.
- Make a reasonable decision in your appeal. A “reasonable” decision is one that is based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from the facts. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions.
Appeal Grounds Details: I believe the Associate Dean was not reasonable and did not follow the regulations in a way that supported my right to a fair process in her decision for my petition. I will be referring to her decision letter throughout this appeal.
“you are not eligible for Credit Standing in PHIL 351 (W24) as you did
not complete all of the work in this course. The instructor has reported
that there were 12 Weekly Participation Questions assigned, with the
lowest two grades being dropped. As you only completed 4 out of 12
questions, I cannot grant this request.”
This is the only reason cited for the decision of my petition. I should not be denied this petition on the grounds that not all course work was submitted - this regulation obviously refers to students who were not proactive in ensuring their work would be submitted and then subsequently never submitted it, and this is not the case for me. In light of these circumstances that I will outline in my appeal letter and were also previously outlined in my original petition, I argue that the Dean did not follow the regulations in a reasonable way that supports my right to a fair petition process. Furthermore, It is unfair and unreasonable to be denied this petition on the grounds that not all course work was completed since the assigned work was unreasonable in the first place, and since the professor discouraged students from completing it due to his unfair marking. This reasoning clearly supports unrealistic and in-compassionate expectations that reflect an illogical outcome to my petition.
“you are not eligible for Credit Standing in PHIL 351 (W24) as you did
not complete all of the work in this course. The instructor has reported
that there were 12 Weekly Participation Questions assigned, with the
lowest two grades being dropped. As you only completed 4 out of 12
questions, I cannot grant this request.”
This is the only reason cited for the decision of my petition. I should not be denied this petition on the grounds that not all course work was submitted - this regulation obviously refers to students who were not proactive in ensuring their work would be submitted and then subsequently never submitted it, and this is not the case for me. In light of these circumstances that I will outline in my appeal letter and were also previously outlined in my original petition, I argue that the Dean did not follow the regulations in a reasonable way that supports my right to a fair petition process. Furthermore, It is unfair and unreasonable to be denied this petition on the grounds that not all course work was completed since the assigned work was unreasonable in the first place, and since the professor discouraged students from completing it due to his unfair marking. This reasoning clearly supports unrealistic and in-compassionate expectations that reflect an illogical outcome to my petition.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: I believe the Associate Dean was not reasonable and did not follow the regulations in a way that supported my right to a fair process in her decision for my petition. I will be referring to her decision letter throughout this appeal.
“you are not eligible for Credit Standing in PHIL 351 (W24) as you did
not complete all of the work in this course. The instructor has reported
that there were 12 Weekly Participation Questions assigned, with the
lowest two grades being dropped. As you only completed 4 out of 12
questions, I cannot grant this request.”
This is the only reason cited for the decision of my petition. It is important to note that I was also very transparent in my original petition about not completing all of the Participation Questions. Each Question was worth 1% of the overall course grade with the last 2 being dropped (10% overall). I also completed 6 of the 12 offered not 4, but was failed for 2 of them by the instructor resulting in me only receiving 4 marks. This is reflected on the course onQ page which is still open.
On top of the very serious personal struggle that I dealt with this last semester, I discussed at length the problems that myself and multiple students in PHIL 351 took with the professor’s teaching style and by extension grading in my original petition. I specifically referred to the unfair participation questions in this discussion. Because of this, it was heavily inferred in my petition that I was extremely discouraged from completing these weekly participation questions due to the professor’s marking practices. I was not late in submitting them, but rather did not want to put the time and effort into completing them only to be marked unfairly. My course history will reflect my consistent submission of all assignments and course material in all the classes I took in my undergrad. This should further indicate just how discouraging the grading scheme was in PHIL 351. Since I was so heavily discouraged, I should rightfully not be denied this petition on the grounds that not all course work was submitted - this regulation obviously refers to students who were not proactive in ensuring their work would be submitted and then subsequently never submitted it, and this is not the case for me. In light of these circumstances that were also previously outlined in my original petition, I argue that the Dean did not follow the regulations in a reasonable way that supports my right to a fair petition process.
Furthermore, these Participation Questions were combined into a singular component of the overall course grade in the marking scheme, with 2 of the 12 even being dropped as unnecessary at the end of the term. It should arguably follow, then, that if 1 of the 12 was completed, then the course work in that area was satisfied. If I completed 10 Participation Questions and not 12, it seems as though the Associate Dean would still deny my petition. Although I do see that this could technically be within her purview to do so, I argue in this appeal that this reasoning is in-compassionate, unrealistic, and resultantly unfair. Especially since each Question was worth such a small portion of the overall mark in the course - they are unreasonable tasks in themselves to complete weekly for only 1% of the grade. It is unfair and unreasonable to be denied this petition on the grounds that not all course work was completed since the assigned work was unreasonable in the first place, and since the professor discouraged students from completing it due to his unfair marking.
“If you are concerned with the impact that this course has on your GPA, I
would suggest that you consider repeating it in a future term.”
I have given 5 years of my life to this school, with my father being murdered within that time. I am insulted and devastated by this decision and the alternative solution provided by the Associate Dean, especially given my circumstances throughout my undergrad. I just graduated from my undergrad less than 2 weeks ago. This grade came to me in the final semester of my undergrad, after years of compounded struggle and personal strife. At what point would it be realistic that I would work backwards and retake an undergraduate course? I have many ameliorative ventures lined up in front of me this coming year, and I have made it clear that this grade should not be reflected on my transcript due to the extenuating circumstances I experienced this semester that were beyond my control. Both my father’s murder trial and the grading practices of the teacher earned me a substantially lower grade than expected.
Besides this grade I petitioned, there is absolutely no sign of a C letter grade anywhere on my transcript. I have otherwise not received a mark lower than a B- at any point during my undergrad. I was 1% away from a B minus in the course I am petitioning at that, and neither my professor nor the Associate Dean could find the compassion for me to allow for that minimal increase. An increase that means a world of difference for me in the future of my academic career.
At the end of this very difficult last semester, I was also rejected from the two law schools I applied to, Queen’s Law being one of them. It is important to note that this credit change will make an immense difference in my next application, as it will substantially increase my last semester’s GPA and by extension my overall CGPA. I was juggling full time school, my part time job in the military, and my father’s murder trial last semester. Specifically due to the latter, I was an emotional wreck. I implore the Board to empathize with my circumstance, I was faced with horrendous details weekly related to my father’s passing all while I had to continue with my life ‘normally.’ I am desperate for any last dregs of compassion that Queen’s University can offer me.
“you are not eligible for Credit Standing in PHIL 351 (W24) as you did
not complete all of the work in this course. The instructor has reported
that there were 12 Weekly Participation Questions assigned, with the
lowest two grades being dropped. As you only completed 4 out of 12
questions, I cannot grant this request.”
This is the only reason cited for the decision of my petition. It is important to note that I was also very transparent in my original petition about not completing all of the Participation Questions. Each Question was worth 1% of the overall course grade with the last 2 being dropped (10% overall). I also completed 6 of the 12 offered not 4, but was failed for 2 of them by the instructor resulting in me only receiving 4 marks. This is reflected on the course onQ page which is still open.
On top of the very serious personal struggle that I dealt with this last semester, I discussed at length the problems that myself and multiple students in PHIL 351 took with the professor’s teaching style and by extension grading in my original petition. I specifically referred to the unfair participation questions in this discussion. Because of this, it was heavily inferred in my petition that I was extremely discouraged from completing these weekly participation questions due to the professor’s marking practices. I was not late in submitting them, but rather did not want to put the time and effort into completing them only to be marked unfairly. My course history will reflect my consistent submission of all assignments and course material in all the classes I took in my undergrad. This should further indicate just how discouraging the grading scheme was in PHIL 351. Since I was so heavily discouraged, I should rightfully not be denied this petition on the grounds that not all course work was submitted - this regulation obviously refers to students who were not proactive in ensuring their work would be submitted and then subsequently never submitted it, and this is not the case for me. In light of these circumstances that were also previously outlined in my original petition, I argue that the Dean did not follow the regulations in a reasonable way that supports my right to a fair petition process.
Furthermore, these Participation Questions were combined into a singular component of the overall course grade in the marking scheme, with 2 of the 12 even being dropped as unnecessary at the end of the term. It should arguably follow, then, that if 1 of the 12 was completed, then the course work in that area was satisfied. If I completed 10 Participation Questions and not 12, it seems as though the Associate Dean would still deny my petition. Although I do see that this could technically be within her purview to do so, I argue in this appeal that this reasoning is in-compassionate, unrealistic, and resultantly unfair. Especially since each Question was worth such a small portion of the overall mark in the course - they are unreasonable tasks in themselves to complete weekly for only 1% of the grade. It is unfair and unreasonable to be denied this petition on the grounds that not all course work was completed since the assigned work was unreasonable in the first place, and since the professor discouraged students from completing it due to his unfair marking.
“If you are concerned with the impact that this course has on your GPA, I
would suggest that you consider repeating it in a future term.”
I have given 5 years of my life to this school, with my father being murdered within that time. I am insulted and devastated by this decision and the alternative solution provided by the Associate Dean, especially given my circumstances throughout my undergrad. I just graduated from my undergrad less than 2 weeks ago. This grade came to me in the final semester of my undergrad, after years of compounded struggle and personal strife. At what point would it be realistic that I would work backwards and retake an undergraduate course? I have many ameliorative ventures lined up in front of me this coming year, and I have made it clear that this grade should not be reflected on my transcript due to the extenuating circumstances I experienced this semester that were beyond my control. Both my father’s murder trial and the grading practices of the teacher earned me a substantially lower grade than expected.
Besides this grade I petitioned, there is absolutely no sign of a C letter grade anywhere on my transcript. I have otherwise not received a mark lower than a B- at any point during my undergrad. I was 1% away from a B minus in the course I am petitioning at that, and neither my professor nor the Associate Dean could find the compassion for me to allow for that minimal increase. An increase that means a world of difference for me in the future of my academic career.
At the end of this very difficult last semester, I was also rejected from the two law schools I applied to, Queen’s Law being one of them. It is important to note that this credit change will make an immense difference in my next application, as it will substantially increase my last semester’s GPA and by extension my overall CGPA. I was juggling full time school, my part time job in the military, and my father’s murder trial last semester. Specifically due to the latter, I was an emotional wreck. I implore the Board to empathize with my circumstance, I was faced with horrendous details weekly related to my father’s passing all while I had to continue with my life ‘normally.’ I am desperate for any last dregs of compassion that Queen’s University can offer me.
Documentation
History
Originally submitted May 8, 2024 at 2:33:37 AM.
| Field | Reference | Old Value | New Value | Note | User | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| status | N/A | Received | Incomplete | Instructor input | Kerri Andrews | 2024-06-05 10:05:38 PM |
| status | N/A | Incomplete | Withdrawn | Kerri Andrews | 2024-06-07 9:43:27 AM | |
| status | N/A | Withdrawn | In Review | Kerri Andrews | 2024-06-07 9:44:36 AM | |
| status | N/A | In Review | Denied | Kerri Andrews | 2024-06-17 10:33:32 AM | |
| associate_dean | N/A | Jenn Stephenson, Ph.D. | Kerri Andrews | 2024-06-17 10:33:32 AM | ||
| decision_letter | N/A | N/A | Decision letter sent | Kerri Andrews | 2024-06-17 10:34:09 AM | |
| new_appeal_level_2 | N/A | Level 2 | Level 2 Appeal ID: 273 | 19jmr | 2024-06-28 6:41:58 AM | |
| status | N/A | Received | Denied | Board upheld ADA decision | Libby Hearn | 2024-10-02 1:51:15 PM |