Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Dear Associate Dean (Academic),

I am writing to formally petition for a re-evaluation of my final exam grade in my Seminar in Canadian Politics course with Dr. Baisley under Appeal Regulation 3.3.1.6. I have already completed the required informal review process with the instructor and received a response maintaining the original grades assigned to my final exam essays. I am therefore requesting a formal review on the grounds that (1) there was a discrepancy in marking and (2) the decision reached in the instructor’s review was not fully reasonable or procedurally fair in relation to the assignment instructions and evaluation criteria.

My concern is not that I disagree with critical feedback generally, but rather that the rationale provided for maintaining the grades appears to apply interpretive standards inconsistently and does not fully account for the structure or intent of my arguments. I believe my work demonstrated a stronger engagement with course concepts, comparative analysis, and use of evidence than reflected in the final assessment.

For Question 1, I was assessed at a B- despite extensive engagement with course readings and comparative frameworks. In both my original exam and my appeal, I explained that my argument intentionally examined the interaction between institutional and ideational explanations rather than treating them as entirely separable categories. The instructor’s response to my appeal argues that my use of McMahon and Maioni weakened my argument because the Saskatchewan example reflected ideational influence more than institutional influence. However, this interpretation overlooks that my essay was not arguing these examples were purely institutional in isolation. Rather, my argument addressed how institutional structures can facilitate the transmission of ideas and shape their political impact.

The response to my appeal acknowledges that Maioni advances an institutional argument. However, I was then penalized because the particular example of Saskatchewan’s influence on the federal government was characterized as ideational. This reasoning appears internally inconsistent. Comparative politics scholarship frequently recognizes that institutions and ideas interact rather than exist as mutually exclusive explanatory categories. My essay attempted to engage directly with this complexity. Even if the example could reasonably be interpreted as containing both ideational and institutional dimensions, that should not invalidate the broader analytical framework of the essay or substantially lower the grade.

Additionally, the feedback appears to move beyond evaluating whether my interpretation was reasonable and instead substitutes a narrower interpretation of the readings as the only acceptable one. The assignment and exam instructions did not state that students were required to reproduce a single interpretation of course readings. Rather, students were expected to construct analytical arguments using course material. My response did this by synthesizing multiple authors and applying them comparatively. While the instructor may disagree with aspects of my interpretation, disagreement alone should not necessarily warrant a grade reduction to the extent reflected in the final mark.

I also believe there is a discrepancy between the grading rationale and the strengths acknowledged in the feedback itself. The instructor recognized that I consistently referenced course material, used paragraphing effectively, and engaged central course debates. My essay incorporated approximately four to six course readings per response and attempted to balance competing explanations rather than relying on description alone. Given this demonstrated engagement, the grade appears disproportionately low relative to the criteria emphasized in the course, particularly regarding analytical engagement with readings.

For Question 2, the instructor’s revised explanation emphasizes that my answer did not fully explain why Canada–U.S. comparisons were superior to all comparison types listed in the prompt, specifically Canada–Westminster and Canada–EU comparisons. However, this expectation was not clearly stated in the original prompt itself. The question asked students to defend a position regarding comparative frameworks. My essay directly addressed this by arguing in favour of Canada–U.S. comparisons while rebutting the subnational alternative, which I identified as the strongest competing claim.

The instructor’s response now suggests that a stronger answer would have included separate counterargument paragraphs addressing every possible comparison type listed in the question. However, this appears to introduce a more specific evaluative expectation after the fact rather than relying on explicit grading criteria available to students during the exam. In practice, students had limited time and space to develop arguments under exam conditions. Prioritizing the strongest counterargument is a legitimate argumentative strategy commonly used in academic writing. My essay acknowledged alternative frameworks while maintaining a clear preference for Canada–U.S. comparisons throughout.

Moreover, the instructor’s response itself recognizes that my essay consistently prioritized Canada–U.S. comparisons as the most effective framework. The criticism is therefore not that I lacked a thesis, but that I did not address every alternative comparison model with equal depth. I respectfully submit that this concern relates more to the scope of the essay than to a fundamental weakness in argumentation sufficient to justify a C+ grade.

I am also concerned that the rationale used in the appeal response places excessive emphasis on what the essay did not include rather than evaluating the quality of what was substantively present. My response incorporated numerous course readings, comparative examples, and analytical claims consistent with themes emphasized throughout the course. The argument was structured through an introduction outlining the thesis and organizational plan, followed by body paragraphs applying course material comparatively. While there may have been areas for clarification or expansion, I do not believe the essay reflected the level of weakness typically associated with a C+ range.

Finally, I am concerned by the suggestion that a review would not meaningfully alter my final course grade unless there were “a very substantial shift” in both exam grades. While I understand this may have been intended as contextual information, I respectfully believe that the focus of a grade appeal should remain on whether the assigned grades accurately reflect the quality of the work according to the rubric and course expectations. The possibility that a re-evaluation may or may not alter the final letter grade should not affect whether the work itself receives a fair reassessment.

For these reasons, I respectfully request a formal re-evaluation of my final exam essays by an impartial reviewer. I believe my responses demonstrated stronger analytical engagement, integration of course readings, and comparative reasoning than reflected in the original assessment and subsequent appeal response. I appreciate your time and consideration of this petition.

Sincerely,

Ava Desouza