Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 12541
Submitted: December 22, 2024 at 7:06:20 PM
First Name: Zachary
Last Name: Agnew
Pronoun: he
Preferred Name: Zach
Student Number: 20295439
Email: 21za@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: POLS
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Code: POLS 494
Term: Fall
Year: 2024
Petition Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor's Name: Surulola Eke
Section/Class Number: 494
Component: Final Research Paper
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: Dear Associate Dean,
I hope this message finds you well. The focus of this appeal is my final research paper for POLS 494: Global Climate Governance. To explain concisely, my final paper focuses on The United State’s use of carbon offsetting to project a facade of decarbonization policy in line with their obligations under international agreements. On the basis that I did not answer the prompt’s research question, I have just received the worst mark I’ve ever received on any deliverable through 4 years of Queens Poli Sci. This was the feedback:
“Good discussion, Zach, but you did not answer the assignment question, which required students to assess a particular country's pursuit of their multilateral climate obligations and the factors that explain their success/failure in that regard.”
Given that it’s indicated in this feedback that my loss of marks was strictly related to a misalignment between my paper and the assignment question, I believe it is pivotal to point out: this is not what was required by the assignment question:
“Compare any country’s climate governance architecture with its obligations under multilateral climate change mitigation agreements. Account for all observed discrepancies and /or alignments. After a preliminary library research, develop a research question or thesis statement and submit it to me for review and approval. After obtaining feedback and approval, write a well researched paper that addresses this question/thesis.”
How is it possible that I can lose marks for failing to answer our prof’s question on an assignment in which I am the one responsible for creating the research question that the paper revolves around?
When reading this prompt, the first major misunderstanding lies in the first sentence. We are told to compare these two things and account for discrepancies - not that our final paper needs to do this. Since there is nothing outlining this instruction as the main question of the paper, my understanding of this sentence was that this comparison is what should be guiding our preliminary research. This is reinforced by the fact that the next sentence starts with “after a preliminary library research,” suggesting that anything prior to that statement was referencing the research and not the production of the final product.
Secondly, in the portion that explains creating our own thesis, there is no guideline of any sort regarding its requirement to answer the question that I lost marks for not addressing. There is no part that says to create a thesis “that focuses on these discrepancies” or “that explains the factors leading to the outcome,” it simply says: “develop a research question or thesis statement.”
Despite all this, I maintain that there is quite literally, no better way to describe this paper than an assessment of “a particular country's pursuit of their multilateral climate obligations and the factors that explain their success/failure.” The paper outlines how carbon offsetting (factor) allows the United States (particular country) to pass obligations off to southern countries and continue producing/using carbon domestically. (Failure) To summarize, not only does the prompt phrase the comparison portion in a way that could easily be understood as a research guide, I believe there is more than a credible case to be made that I satisfied the prompt despite that.
I am in the process of applying for my Masters and internships and this is literally going to be the worst mark I have gotten in 4 years of Poli Sci deliverables - not based on the quality of my writing or analysis, but completely based on misalignment with the prompt. The assignment explicitly allowed us to develop our own thesis through research, and my paper did exactly that, offering a critical, well-supported analysis of the U.S.'s use of carbon offsetting within the framework of its international climate obligations. A 33% grade drop based solely on a perceived misalignment with the professor’s interpretation of the prompt does not reflect the quality of my work or the effort I put in. Receiving such a grade misrepresents my academic abilities and could potentially undermine opportunities in my pursuit of graduate studies.
I would like to respectfully request that my paper be re-evaluated on both its adherence to the written prompt and the standards of analysis expected at this level. Our program should be rewarding students for approaching generalized topics like “a countries climate governance architecture” with unique analyses that zero in on specific factors - not docking their grades in their final year by over 30%.
Thank you for any help and I hope the whole faculty has a good holiday season.
Zachary Agnew
I hope this message finds you well. The focus of this appeal is my final research paper for POLS 494: Global Climate Governance. To explain concisely, my final paper focuses on The United State’s use of carbon offsetting to project a facade of decarbonization policy in line with their obligations under international agreements. On the basis that I did not answer the prompt’s research question, I have just received the worst mark I’ve ever received on any deliverable through 4 years of Queens Poli Sci. This was the feedback:
“Good discussion, Zach, but you did not answer the assignment question, which required students to assess a particular country's pursuit of their multilateral climate obligations and the factors that explain their success/failure in that regard.”
Given that it’s indicated in this feedback that my loss of marks was strictly related to a misalignment between my paper and the assignment question, I believe it is pivotal to point out: this is not what was required by the assignment question:
“Compare any country’s climate governance architecture with its obligations under multilateral climate change mitigation agreements. Account for all observed discrepancies and /or alignments. After a preliminary library research, develop a research question or thesis statement and submit it to me for review and approval. After obtaining feedback and approval, write a well researched paper that addresses this question/thesis.”
How is it possible that I can lose marks for failing to answer our prof’s question on an assignment in which I am the one responsible for creating the research question that the paper revolves around?
When reading this prompt, the first major misunderstanding lies in the first sentence. We are told to compare these two things and account for discrepancies - not that our final paper needs to do this. Since there is nothing outlining this instruction as the main question of the paper, my understanding of this sentence was that this comparison is what should be guiding our preliminary research. This is reinforced by the fact that the next sentence starts with “after a preliminary library research,” suggesting that anything prior to that statement was referencing the research and not the production of the final product.
Secondly, in the portion that explains creating our own thesis, there is no guideline of any sort regarding its requirement to answer the question that I lost marks for not addressing. There is no part that says to create a thesis “that focuses on these discrepancies” or “that explains the factors leading to the outcome,” it simply says: “develop a research question or thesis statement.”
Despite all this, I maintain that there is quite literally, no better way to describe this paper than an assessment of “a particular country's pursuit of their multilateral climate obligations and the factors that explain their success/failure.” The paper outlines how carbon offsetting (factor) allows the United States (particular country) to pass obligations off to southern countries and continue producing/using carbon domestically. (Failure) To summarize, not only does the prompt phrase the comparison portion in a way that could easily be understood as a research guide, I believe there is more than a credible case to be made that I satisfied the prompt despite that.
I am in the process of applying for my Masters and internships and this is literally going to be the worst mark I have gotten in 4 years of Poli Sci deliverables - not based on the quality of my writing or analysis, but completely based on misalignment with the prompt. The assignment explicitly allowed us to develop our own thesis through research, and my paper did exactly that, offering a critical, well-supported analysis of the U.S.'s use of carbon offsetting within the framework of its international climate obligations. A 33% grade drop based solely on a perceived misalignment with the professor’s interpretation of the prompt does not reflect the quality of my work or the effort I put in. Receiving such a grade misrepresents my academic abilities and could potentially undermine opportunities in my pursuit of graduate studies.
I would like to respectfully request that my paper be re-evaluated on both its adherence to the written prompt and the standards of analysis expected at this level. Our program should be rewarding students for approaching generalized topics like “a countries climate governance architecture” with unique analyses that zero in on specific factors - not docking their grades in their final year by over 30%.
Thank you for any help and I hope the whole faculty has a good holiday season.
Zachary Agnew
Documentation
Document: Climate Colonialism_-3.pdf