Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 14165
Submitted: April 13, 2026 at 3:32:56 PM
First Name: Aaron
Last Name: Dominico
Pronoun: He/Him
Preferred Name: Aaron
Student Number: 20475679
Email: 23pnq4@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BScH
Plan: General Science
Level of Study: 2
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Code: MATH 112
Term: Winter
Year: 2026
Petition Category: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: Aaron Dominico
Student Number: 20475679
NetID: 23PNQ4
Course: MATH 112 – Linear Algebra
Instructor: Felix Parraud
Subject: Petition to Drop Course After Deadline
I am writing to request permission to drop the course MATH 112 (Linear Algebra) after the official deadline due to circumstances that prevented me from making an informed academic decision.
According to the course syllabus, the grading scheme is based on three quizzes worth a total of 45% and a final exam worth 55%. The syllabus also states that if a quiz is missed for a legitimate reason, the remaining quizzes will be reweighted. Additionally, I have attached a photo that contains the announcement from the course in which the instructor states that only the best two out of the three quiz marks will be counted.
The three quizzes were held on February 4, February 25, and March 25, as outlined in the syllabus. Each quiz consisted of a small number of short-answer questions. Despite this, there were huge delays in grading throughout the semester, with quizzes taking approximately a month to be returned and without meaningful feedback.
Prior to the third quiz, I was aware that my performance was below my expectations. However, based on the “best 2 out of 3 quizzes” policy, I reasonably believed that performing well on the third quiz would allow me to improve my standing and potentially pass the course.
The third quiz was written on March 25, while the official course drop deadline was April 6. Given the short length of the quiz and that solutions were released shortly afterward, I reasonably expected that the grades would be returned before the deadline so I could make an informed decision about whether to remain in the course.
However, the grade for Quiz 3 was not released until April 12, after the drop deadline had passed. I have attached an image showing that the Quiz 3 marks were released on this date. Upon receiving my grade, I realized that my performance had not improved as expected. My two highest quiz marks are 45% and 47%, which makes successfully passing the course highly unlikely.
As a result of the delayed grading, I was unable to accurately assess my academic standing before the drop deadline. If this information had been made available before the drop date, I would have made the decision to drop the course prior to the deadline.
I take responsibility for my academic performance, however, I believe that the delay in receiving critical grading information prevented me from making a fully informed decision within the required timeframe.
For these reasons, I respectfully request permission to drop MATH 112 after the deadline.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you,
Aaron Dominico
Student Number: 20475679
NetID: 23PNQ4
Course: MATH 112 – Linear Algebra
Instructor: Felix Parraud
Subject: Petition to Drop Course After Deadline
I am writing to request permission to drop the course MATH 112 (Linear Algebra) after the official deadline due to circumstances that prevented me from making an informed academic decision.
According to the course syllabus, the grading scheme is based on three quizzes worth a total of 45% and a final exam worth 55%. The syllabus also states that if a quiz is missed for a legitimate reason, the remaining quizzes will be reweighted. Additionally, I have attached a photo that contains the announcement from the course in which the instructor states that only the best two out of the three quiz marks will be counted.
The three quizzes were held on February 4, February 25, and March 25, as outlined in the syllabus. Each quiz consisted of a small number of short-answer questions. Despite this, there were huge delays in grading throughout the semester, with quizzes taking approximately a month to be returned and without meaningful feedback.
Prior to the third quiz, I was aware that my performance was below my expectations. However, based on the “best 2 out of 3 quizzes” policy, I reasonably believed that performing well on the third quiz would allow me to improve my standing and potentially pass the course.
The third quiz was written on March 25, while the official course drop deadline was April 6. Given the short length of the quiz and that solutions were released shortly afterward, I reasonably expected that the grades would be returned before the deadline so I could make an informed decision about whether to remain in the course.
However, the grade for Quiz 3 was not released until April 12, after the drop deadline had passed. I have attached an image showing that the Quiz 3 marks were released on this date. Upon receiving my grade, I realized that my performance had not improved as expected. My two highest quiz marks are 45% and 47%, which makes successfully passing the course highly unlikely.
As a result of the delayed grading, I was unable to accurately assess my academic standing before the drop deadline. If this information had been made available before the drop date, I would have made the decision to drop the course prior to the deadline.
I take responsibility for my academic performance, however, I believe that the delay in receiving critical grading information prevented me from making a fully informed decision within the required timeframe.
For these reasons, I respectfully request permission to drop MATH 112 after the deadline.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you,
Aaron Dominico
Documentation
Professional Letter Detail: NO DOC
Document: Syllabus-1.pdf
Documentation Detail: Annoucement of quiz, date proof and syllabus
Document: Quiz proof.pdf
Document: Annoucement.pdf
Decision Letters
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 363
Submitted: April 30, 2026 at 1:41:57 PM
Relevant Petition: 14165
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Drop a course after the academic deadline: MATH 112, Winter 2026
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: The Associate Dean’s decision was not reasonable and did not follow procedural fairness because it relied on an incorrect interpretation of the course syllabus.
In the decision letter, it is stated that the “best 2 of 3 quiz policy and grading scheme would have been outlined in the syllabus at the beginning of the term.” However, the syllabus does not state that the best two quizzes are counted for all students. It only specifies that two quizzes will count in cases where a student misses a quiz for a legitimate reason.
This is very critical. A general “best 2 of 3” grading policy was not part of the original syllabus and was only introduced later through a course announcement on March 19, 2026. As a result, the decision is based on a factual inaccuracy.
Because the decision relies on an incorrect claim about the syllabus, it is not supported by the evidence and therefore does not meet the standard of a reasonable decision.
Additionally, the late change to the grading structure impacted my ability to make an informed decision before the academic drop deadline. Without prior knowledge that one quiz would be dropped automatically, I was required to assess my standing based on only two quizzes, representing 30% of the course grade at the time which was barely half of the course total information.
For these reasons, I believe the decision did not sufficiently follow university standards for fairness and reasonableness, and should be reconsidered.
In the decision letter, it is stated that the “best 2 of 3 quiz policy and grading scheme would have been outlined in the syllabus at the beginning of the term.” However, the syllabus does not state that the best two quizzes are counted for all students. It only specifies that two quizzes will count in cases where a student misses a quiz for a legitimate reason.
This is very critical. A general “best 2 of 3” grading policy was not part of the original syllabus and was only introduced later through a course announcement on March 19, 2026. As a result, the decision is based on a factual inaccuracy.
Because the decision relies on an incorrect claim about the syllabus, it is not supported by the evidence and therefore does not meet the standard of a reasonable decision.
Additionally, the late change to the grading structure impacted my ability to make an informed decision before the academic drop deadline. Without prior knowledge that one quiz would be dropped automatically, I was required to assess my standing based on only two quizzes, representing 30% of the course grade at the time which was barely half of the course total information.
For these reasons, I believe the decision did not sufficiently follow university standards for fairness and reasonableness, and should be reconsidered.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: I am submitting this appeal in response to the denial of my petition to drop MATH 112 (W26) after the academic deadline.
My appeal is based on a discrepancy between the course syllabus and a grading policy that was introduced later in the term, as well as the impact this had on my ability to make an informed decision before the drop deadline.
The decision letter states that the “best 2 of 3 quiz policy” was outlined in the syllabus at the beginning of the course. However, after reviewing the syllabus carefully, this is not true. The syllabus only states that if a quiz is missed for a legitimate reason, the remaining two quizzes will count for the full 45%. It does not state that the best two quizzes will be counted for all students.
This distinction is important because the general “best 2 of 3” policy was only introduced later through a course announcement on March 19, 2026. This represents a change to the evaluation structure after the course had already begun.
Prior to the academic drop deadline, I only had access to my Quiz 1 and Quiz 2 grades. Under the original understanding of the grading scheme, these accounted for 30% of the course grade. Without knowing that one quiz would later be dropped automatically, I did not have a complete or accurate understanding of how my performance would be evaluated.
The decision letter suggests that my first two quiz results provided a strong enough basis to assess my standing in the course. However, I respectfully disagree. Evaluating my performance based on only 30% of the course grade, without knowledge of a later adjustment to how that grade would be calculated does not provide a reasonable or complete basis for making an informed academic decision.
Once I received my Quiz 3 result and understood how the revised grading structure applied to my final grade, I acted immediately by submitting my petition because it was released after the drop date. This demonstrates that I made my decision as soon as I had full and accurate information.
My appeal is not based on academic performance alone, but on the fact that the grading structure used to evaluate that performance was not clearly or accurately communicated at the start of the course, and that this directly impacted my ability to make a timely and informed decision.
Because the denial of my petition relies on the assumption that the grading policy was clearly stated in the syllabus when it was not, I believe the decision is not supported by the evidence and should be reconsidered.
Thank you for you're time.
My appeal is based on a discrepancy between the course syllabus and a grading policy that was introduced later in the term, as well as the impact this had on my ability to make an informed decision before the drop deadline.
The decision letter states that the “best 2 of 3 quiz policy” was outlined in the syllabus at the beginning of the course. However, after reviewing the syllabus carefully, this is not true. The syllabus only states that if a quiz is missed for a legitimate reason, the remaining two quizzes will count for the full 45%. It does not state that the best two quizzes will be counted for all students.
This distinction is important because the general “best 2 of 3” policy was only introduced later through a course announcement on March 19, 2026. This represents a change to the evaluation structure after the course had already begun.
Prior to the academic drop deadline, I only had access to my Quiz 1 and Quiz 2 grades. Under the original understanding of the grading scheme, these accounted for 30% of the course grade. Without knowing that one quiz would later be dropped automatically, I did not have a complete or accurate understanding of how my performance would be evaluated.
The decision letter suggests that my first two quiz results provided a strong enough basis to assess my standing in the course. However, I respectfully disagree. Evaluating my performance based on only 30% of the course grade, without knowledge of a later adjustment to how that grade would be calculated does not provide a reasonable or complete basis for making an informed academic decision.
Once I received my Quiz 3 result and understood how the revised grading structure applied to my final grade, I acted immediately by submitting my petition because it was released after the drop date. This demonstrates that I made my decision as soon as I had full and accurate information.
My appeal is not based on academic performance alone, but on the fact that the grading structure used to evaluate that performance was not clearly or accurately communicated at the start of the course, and that this directly impacted my ability to make a timely and informed decision.
Because the denial of my petition relies on the assumption that the grading policy was clearly stated in the syllabus when it was not, I believe the decision is not supported by the evidence and should be reconsidered.
Thank you for you're time.
Documentation
Document: Syllabus-2.pdf
Document: Annoucement-0.pdf
History
Originally submitted April 13, 2026 at 3:32:56 PM.
| Field | Reference | Old Value | New Value | Note | User | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| status | N/A | Received | In Review | Kerri Andrews | 2026-04-14 11:36:40 AM | |
| status | N/A | In Review | Denied | Kerri Andrews | 2026-04-30 10:03:12 AM | |
| associate_dean | N/A | Dorit Naaman (Associate Dean Academic) | Kerri Andrews | 2026-04-30 10:03:12 AM | ||
| decision_letter | N/A | N/A | Decision letter sent | Kerri Andrews | 2026-04-30 10:03:55 AM | |
| new_appeal_level_2 | N/A | Level 2 | Level 2 Appeal ID: 363 | 23pnq4 | 2026-04-30 1:41:57 PM | |
| status | N/A | Received | In Review | Kathrine Scott | 2026-05-06 11:21:59 AM |