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
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.