Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 13374
Submitted: June 24, 2025 at 8:47:54 PM
First Name: Maxime
Last Name: Dalat
Pronoun: she/her
Student Number: 20334352
Email: 21mnd5@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: POLS
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: POLS 367
Term: Fall
Year: 2024
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: David Haglund
Section/Class Number: 5959
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 338
Submitted: August 18, 2025 at 9:37:00 AM
Relevant Petition: 13374
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: POLS 367, Fall 2024 (David Haglund)
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:
- 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: To the Board of Studies,
I am writing to appeal the decision made by Associate Dean Dorit Naaman regarding my petition for Credit Standing in POLS 367 (Fall 2024). I respectfully submit that the decision was not reasonable, as several elements of the rationale provided are not supported by evidence, facts, or logical fairness.
The decision acknowledges my documented health condition but dismisses its impact on my academic performance in POLS 367 on the grounds that I achieved strong grades in my other courses. This reasoning is flawed. Different courses have vastly different assessment structures, and my health condition did not impact all courses equally. POLS 367 was uniquely weighted: 60% on a single final exam and 40% on one major assignment. This grading scheme placed disproportionate pressure on high-stakes evaluations, which were most affected by my condition. It is unreasonable to assume that strong performance in other courses (with more balanced and ongoing evaluation methods) means that my health could not have impaired my ability to succeed in this one.
The decision did not consider the rigid evaluation structure of POLS 367, which left no opportunity for me to recover from the exam result. Even though I studied extensively, the exam content diverged from the material emphasized in lectures, leaving me with no fair chance of demonstrating my understanding. Other courses allowed me to offset one weaker component with stronger work in other areas; POLS 367’s structure did not. It is unreasonable to evaluate my performance in this course without factoring in its unique and unforgiving grading design.
The decision suggests that I should have dropped the course before the deadline if circumstances were affecting me. This ignores the fact that I could not have known the extent of the impact until after the final exam, which accounted for 60% of the grade. Up until that point, I had every reason to believe I could pass, as I had thoroughly prepared. The decision assumes hindsight knowledge that no student could reasonably have had. Holding me accountable for not withdrawing under these circumstances is neither fair nor logical.
The decision states that I did not provide documentation directly linking my health condition to my performance in this specific course. However, the documentation I provided confirmed a significant diagnosis, which by definition impaired my academic performance. It is unreasonable to demand a level of specificity in medical documentation that links symptoms to one course over another, when in fact the nature of POLS 367’s grading design itself created the direct connection.
I am writing to appeal the decision made by Associate Dean Dorit Naaman regarding my petition for Credit Standing in POLS 367 (Fall 2024). I respectfully submit that the decision was not reasonable, as several elements of the rationale provided are not supported by evidence, facts, or logical fairness.
The decision acknowledges my documented health condition but dismisses its impact on my academic performance in POLS 367 on the grounds that I achieved strong grades in my other courses. This reasoning is flawed. Different courses have vastly different assessment structures, and my health condition did not impact all courses equally. POLS 367 was uniquely weighted: 60% on a single final exam and 40% on one major assignment. This grading scheme placed disproportionate pressure on high-stakes evaluations, which were most affected by my condition. It is unreasonable to assume that strong performance in other courses (with more balanced and ongoing evaluation methods) means that my health could not have impaired my ability to succeed in this one.
The decision did not consider the rigid evaluation structure of POLS 367, which left no opportunity for me to recover from the exam result. Even though I studied extensively, the exam content diverged from the material emphasized in lectures, leaving me with no fair chance of demonstrating my understanding. Other courses allowed me to offset one weaker component with stronger work in other areas; POLS 367’s structure did not. It is unreasonable to evaluate my performance in this course without factoring in its unique and unforgiving grading design.
The decision suggests that I should have dropped the course before the deadline if circumstances were affecting me. This ignores the fact that I could not have known the extent of the impact until after the final exam, which accounted for 60% of the grade. Up until that point, I had every reason to believe I could pass, as I had thoroughly prepared. The decision assumes hindsight knowledge that no student could reasonably have had. Holding me accountable for not withdrawing under these circumstances is neither fair nor logical.
The decision states that I did not provide documentation directly linking my health condition to my performance in this specific course. However, the documentation I provided confirmed a significant diagnosis, which by definition impaired my academic performance. It is unreasonable to demand a level of specificity in medical documentation that links symptoms to one course over another, when in fact the nature of POLS 367’s grading design itself created the direct connection.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: To the Board of Studies,
I am writing to formally appeal the decision rendered by Associate Dean Dorit Naaman regarding my petition for Credit Standing in POLS 367 (Fall 2024). While I respect the careful review of my case, I believe the decision to deny my petition is unreasonable and does not adequately reflect either the circumstances surrounding my performance in this course or the broader consequences this denial has on my academic future.
The Associate Dean’s decision places undue weight on the fact that I achieved strong grades in my other Fall 2024 courses, suggesting that my documented health condition did not impair my performance. This reasoning is not supported by evidence. Each course has a distinct evaluation structure, and POLS 367 was uniquely weighted: 60% of the grade depended on a final exam and 40% on a single major assignment. This design left me with no opportunity to demonstrate my knowledge through incremental assessments or to recover from one difficult evaluation. My health condition, though managed well enough in courses with more balanced grading, directly impaired my ability to succeed in a course so disproportionately reliant on high-stakes testing. Comparing performance across unrelated courses fails to account for this important difference and is therefore unreasonable.
The decision also suggests that I should have withdrawn from the course before the drop deadline. This expectation is not realistic. Until I wrote the final exam, I had every reason to believe I could succeed. I prepared diligently, studied thoroughly, and entered the exam confident. It was only after the exam, which contained material that did not reflect what had been emphasized in lectures, that I realized my performance would fall short. By then, the withdrawal deadline had long passed. To imply that I should have foreseen failure under these circumstances is neither logical nor fair.
Finally, the decision states that my documentation did not directly link my diagnosis to my struggles in this particular course. While I recognize the importance of documentation, it is unreasonable to expect a health care professional to provide course-specific analysis of symptoms. My diagnosis is, by definition, one that impairs focus, retention, and performance under exam conditions. Combined with the rigid evaluation structure of POLS 367, the connection between my health and my outcome in this course should be evident without requiring an impossible level of detail from medical documentation.
Beyond the immediate question of fairness, denying this petition has severe and disproportionate consequences for my future. I am currently applying to graduate schools, and this single course grade has a significant negative impact on my GPA. Despite being a hard-working student who has consistently performed well in other courses, my transcript now reflects a result that does not accurately represent my ability or dedication. Graduate admissions committees often rely heavily on GPA as a screening tool. Allowing this one anomalous result to drag down my record risks deterring schools from considering my application fairly, thereby undermining years of effort and academic achievement.
Graduate school is not merely a goal of mine but a necessary next step in pursuing my academic and professional aspirations. I have demonstrated throughout my studies that I am capable of producing strong work and contributing meaningfully to my field. It would be deeply unjust for one course, taken under circumstances not representative of my ability, to stand in the way of that future.
Given the disproportionate and lasting impact this decision will have on my academic standing and graduate school opportunities, I respectfully urge the Board of Studies to reconsider my case and grant Credit Standing in POLS 367 (Fall 2024). This outcome would not only be consistent with fairness and reasonableness but would also ensure that one anomalous course does not overshadow my record as a committed and capable student.
Sincerely,
Maxime Dalat
I am writing to formally appeal the decision rendered by Associate Dean Dorit Naaman regarding my petition for Credit Standing in POLS 367 (Fall 2024). While I respect the careful review of my case, I believe the decision to deny my petition is unreasonable and does not adequately reflect either the circumstances surrounding my performance in this course or the broader consequences this denial has on my academic future.
The Associate Dean’s decision places undue weight on the fact that I achieved strong grades in my other Fall 2024 courses, suggesting that my documented health condition did not impair my performance. This reasoning is not supported by evidence. Each course has a distinct evaluation structure, and POLS 367 was uniquely weighted: 60% of the grade depended on a final exam and 40% on a single major assignment. This design left me with no opportunity to demonstrate my knowledge through incremental assessments or to recover from one difficult evaluation. My health condition, though managed well enough in courses with more balanced grading, directly impaired my ability to succeed in a course so disproportionately reliant on high-stakes testing. Comparing performance across unrelated courses fails to account for this important difference and is therefore unreasonable.
The decision also suggests that I should have withdrawn from the course before the drop deadline. This expectation is not realistic. Until I wrote the final exam, I had every reason to believe I could succeed. I prepared diligently, studied thoroughly, and entered the exam confident. It was only after the exam, which contained material that did not reflect what had been emphasized in lectures, that I realized my performance would fall short. By then, the withdrawal deadline had long passed. To imply that I should have foreseen failure under these circumstances is neither logical nor fair.
Finally, the decision states that my documentation did not directly link my diagnosis to my struggles in this particular course. While I recognize the importance of documentation, it is unreasonable to expect a health care professional to provide course-specific analysis of symptoms. My diagnosis is, by definition, one that impairs focus, retention, and performance under exam conditions. Combined with the rigid evaluation structure of POLS 367, the connection between my health and my outcome in this course should be evident without requiring an impossible level of detail from medical documentation.
Beyond the immediate question of fairness, denying this petition has severe and disproportionate consequences for my future. I am currently applying to graduate schools, and this single course grade has a significant negative impact on my GPA. Despite being a hard-working student who has consistently performed well in other courses, my transcript now reflects a result that does not accurately represent my ability or dedication. Graduate admissions committees often rely heavily on GPA as a screening tool. Allowing this one anomalous result to drag down my record risks deterring schools from considering my application fairly, thereby undermining years of effort and academic achievement.
Graduate school is not merely a goal of mine but a necessary next step in pursuing my academic and professional aspirations. I have demonstrated throughout my studies that I am capable of producing strong work and contributing meaningfully to my field. It would be deeply unjust for one course, taken under circumstances not representative of my ability, to stand in the way of that future.
Given the disproportionate and lasting impact this decision will have on my academic standing and graduate school opportunities, I respectfully urge the Board of Studies to reconsider my case and grant Credit Standing in POLS 367 (Fall 2024). This outcome would not only be consistent with fairness and reasonableness but would also ensure that one anomalous course does not overshadow my record as a committed and capable student.
Sincerely,
Maxime Dalat