Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 14117
Submitted: April 3, 2026 at 3:22:37 PM
First Name: Ava
Last Name: DeSouza
Pronoun: she/her
Preferred Name: Ava
Student Number: 20351942
Email: 21abd7@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: POLS, ENGL
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 410
Term: Winter
Year: 2026
Petition Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor's Name: Elizabeth Baisley
Section/Class Number: 1
Component: In-Class Test
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: April 3, 2026
Petition for Re-evaluation of Test #2 – POLS 410: Seminar in Canadian Politics (Dr. Baisley)
Dear Associate Dean,
I am writing to formally request a re-evaluation of my test #2 in my Canadian Politics seminar course taught by Dr. Baisley. Following the informal review process, I had the opportunity to consult my exam once during office hours. While I appreciated this opportunity, the limited access to the test has constrained my ability to fully assess the basis of the grading. Having reviewed my responses in person, I respectfully submit that my work may have been under-evaluated and warrants reconsideration.
My central argument in the test was that Canada can be understood as exceptional in comparison to Australia, New Zealand and the United States, particularly in relation to its more centralized institutional authority and relatively secular political structure. I maintained this argument consistently throughout the essay and structured my response to directly engage with the debate on Canadian exceptionalism as outlined in the course.
In terms of substance, I believe my response meets the expectations of a strong analytical essay. I explicitly engaged with course readings across multiple weeks and incorporated all assigned authors either in my outline or in the final written response. Rather than listing authors, I used each to support a specific component of my broader claim. For example, I drew on comparative institutional analyses to demonstrate how Canada’s federal structure differs in degree and operation from other settler societies, and I connected these differences to policy outcomes. I also incorporated relevant examples from the readings to substantiate each step of my argument.
Additionally, I included a counterargument that addressed the limits of Canadian exceptionalism, particularly by acknowledging arguments that emphasize policy convergence or shared settler colonial trajectories. I then responded to this counterargument by demonstrating how Canada’s institutional configuration still produces distinct outcomes. While I understand from the feedback that this section could have been more fully developed, I did not omit it, and I did attempt to engage critically with opposing perspectives in a way that supported my overall thesis.
Dr. Baisley’s feedback suggests that I could have more explicitly linked each section of my essay back to the exceptionalism debate and further clarified how my evidence supported my claims. While I appreciate this guidance and agree that there is room for improvement in terms of clarity and emphasis, I believe that the core elements of a strong response were present. My argument remained focused, I did not significantly deviate from my thesis, and I consistently used course material to build and support my analysis.
I also note the feedback regarding my interpretation of specific authors, including Farney and McMahon. While I acknowledge that my engagement with these texts may not have fully aligned with their precise arguments, I did not misrepresent them entirely, but rather used their work to support a broader comparative claim about institutional variation and policy development. Given the constraints of a timed test setting, I aimed to synthesize multiple readings into a coherent argument, and I believe this effort was not fully reflected in the evaluation.
Overall, my concern is not that the feedback is unwarranted, but that the final grade may not fully account for the strengths of my response, including the breadth of course engagement, the presence of a clear and sustained argument, and the incorporation of both supporting evidence and counterargument. As such, I respectfully request that my test be re-evaluated to ensure that these elements have been adequately considered.
I will provide all relevant materials, including my original test and any supporting documentation, as required. Please note that these materials will be submitted separately.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ava Desouza
Petition for Re-evaluation of Test #2 – POLS 410: Seminar in Canadian Politics (Dr. Baisley)
Dear Associate Dean,
I am writing to formally request a re-evaluation of my test #2 in my Canadian Politics seminar course taught by Dr. Baisley. Following the informal review process, I had the opportunity to consult my exam once during office hours. While I appreciated this opportunity, the limited access to the test has constrained my ability to fully assess the basis of the grading. Having reviewed my responses in person, I respectfully submit that my work may have been under-evaluated and warrants reconsideration.
My central argument in the test was that Canada can be understood as exceptional in comparison to Australia, New Zealand and the United States, particularly in relation to its more centralized institutional authority and relatively secular political structure. I maintained this argument consistently throughout the essay and structured my response to directly engage with the debate on Canadian exceptionalism as outlined in the course.
In terms of substance, I believe my response meets the expectations of a strong analytical essay. I explicitly engaged with course readings across multiple weeks and incorporated all assigned authors either in my outline or in the final written response. Rather than listing authors, I used each to support a specific component of my broader claim. For example, I drew on comparative institutional analyses to demonstrate how Canada’s federal structure differs in degree and operation from other settler societies, and I connected these differences to policy outcomes. I also incorporated relevant examples from the readings to substantiate each step of my argument.
Additionally, I included a counterargument that addressed the limits of Canadian exceptionalism, particularly by acknowledging arguments that emphasize policy convergence or shared settler colonial trajectories. I then responded to this counterargument by demonstrating how Canada’s institutional configuration still produces distinct outcomes. While I understand from the feedback that this section could have been more fully developed, I did not omit it, and I did attempt to engage critically with opposing perspectives in a way that supported my overall thesis.
Dr. Baisley’s feedback suggests that I could have more explicitly linked each section of my essay back to the exceptionalism debate and further clarified how my evidence supported my claims. While I appreciate this guidance and agree that there is room for improvement in terms of clarity and emphasis, I believe that the core elements of a strong response were present. My argument remained focused, I did not significantly deviate from my thesis, and I consistently used course material to build and support my analysis.
I also note the feedback regarding my interpretation of specific authors, including Farney and McMahon. While I acknowledge that my engagement with these texts may not have fully aligned with their precise arguments, I did not misrepresent them entirely, but rather used their work to support a broader comparative claim about institutional variation and policy development. Given the constraints of a timed test setting, I aimed to synthesize multiple readings into a coherent argument, and I believe this effort was not fully reflected in the evaluation.
Overall, my concern is not that the feedback is unwarranted, but that the final grade may not fully account for the strengths of my response, including the breadth of course engagement, the presence of a clear and sustained argument, and the incorporation of both supporting evidence and counterargument. As such, I respectfully request that my test be re-evaluated to ensure that these elements have been adequately considered.
I will provide all relevant materials, including my original test and any supporting documentation, as required. Please note that these materials will be submitted separately.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ava Desouza
Documentation
Documentation Detail: Test #2 is kept by Professor Baisley and must be supplied by them.
Document: POLS410 Syllabus .pdf