Decision Letter
Appeal Number: 573
Decision Date: December 9, 2014
Associate Dean: J. Hugh Horton, Ph.D.
Student Name: Cristiana Modesti
Student Email: 0cm58@queensu.ca
Course: PHYS P20
Term: Fall
Year: 2014
Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor: Boris Castel
Additional Information: 60 assignment
Ms. Christiana Modesti
0cm58@queensu.ca
Dear Ms. Modesti:
I have carefully considered your appeal to request a review of your instructor€™s decision on your grade for your PHYS P20 assignment (Fall 2014 term). After reviewing your file I have decided to deny your request.
As per Appeal Regulation 3.3.7 (To Request a Review of Instructors€™ Decisions on Grading of Final Examinations and/or Term Work) students who wish to request a review of an Instructor€™s grading decision must submit an appeal that clearly addresses the requirements of the Regulation, which are to:
€¢ clearly articulate grounds for reconsideration and identify specifically the substance of an answer where the student feels the mark given was not evaluated fully;
€¢ show, in an objective answer, that a correct answer has been counted as incorrect;
€¢ show, in a subjective or essay answer, that the response has been under evaluated substantially; and
€¢ provide relevant documentation to support the appeal (i.e. class notes, etc.).
The Regulation goes on to state:
It is the responsibility of the student to preserve all exercises, papers, reports and other graded material for the course and to submit these materials with the appeal. In any formal appeal of term work, the student must accept the responsibility for ensuring that the work presented for reassessment is in fact the original term work submitted for evaluation (see Academic Regulation 11).
As a first step, the student should request an informal review with the instructor concerned, and instructors are strongly encouraged to consent. If the informal review process is unsuccessful, the student may ask for the assistance of the Office of the Associate Dean (Studies) in order to facilitate a review through an appeal to the Associate Dean (Studies).
In reviewing your appeal, I note that it does not appear that you have undertaken an informal review with the instructor concerned, Dr. Boris Castel. I am also not convinced that you have clearly articulated the grounds under which the work should be reviewed, as outlined in the regulation, nor that you have provided sufficient supporting documentation (e.g. a copy of the marked essay, the grading scheme and any email correspondence concerning the assignment and marking) with this appeal. As a result I am denying your appeal at this point. However, I will suggest that you contact Dr. Castel and pursue an informal review at your earliest opportunity. Should you remain unsatisfied with the result of Dr. Castel€™s review I will consider an amendment to this appeal at that time. You should however, be aware that arguments regarding a €œlower caliber€ of expectations in this course compared to a Political Studies course or a need for a higher grade to gain entry into law school will not be received sympathetically as these are not the types of extenuating circumstances that would normally warrant granting an appeal.
If you wish to appeal the Associate Dean€™s decision to the Board of Studies, you must submit an appeal to the Board of Studies within 21 days of the date this decision was sent. Guidelines for appealing to the Board of Studies and the appeal form can be found at: http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/students-at-queens/academic-appeals (click on €œBoard of Studies€) Do not use the on-line application for this process. You may contact Mr. Harry Smith, Office of the Ombudsperson for advice on matters of procedure and on obtaining a representative. His office is located in room 237 Robert Sutherland Hall and he can be reached by phone (533-6495) or e-mail (ombuds@queensu.ca).
Sincerely,
J. Hugh Horton, Ph.D.
Associate Dean (Studies)
10007177Modesti
Decision Date: December 9, 2014
Associate Dean: J. Hugh Horton, Ph.D.
Student Name: Cristiana Modesti
Student Email: 0cm58@queensu.ca
Course: PHYS P20
Term: Fall
Year: 2014
Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor: Boris Castel
Additional Information: 60 assignment
Ms. Christiana Modesti
0cm58@queensu.ca
Dear Ms. Modesti:
I have carefully considered your appeal to request a review of your instructor€™s decision on your grade for your PHYS P20 assignment (Fall 2014 term). After reviewing your file I have decided to deny your request.
As per Appeal Regulation 3.3.7 (To Request a Review of Instructors€™ Decisions on Grading of Final Examinations and/or Term Work) students who wish to request a review of an Instructor€™s grading decision must submit an appeal that clearly addresses the requirements of the Regulation, which are to:
€¢ clearly articulate grounds for reconsideration and identify specifically the substance of an answer where the student feels the mark given was not evaluated fully;
€¢ show, in an objective answer, that a correct answer has been counted as incorrect;
€¢ show, in a subjective or essay answer, that the response has been under evaluated substantially; and
€¢ provide relevant documentation to support the appeal (i.e. class notes, etc.).
The Regulation goes on to state:
It is the responsibility of the student to preserve all exercises, papers, reports and other graded material for the course and to submit these materials with the appeal. In any formal appeal of term work, the student must accept the responsibility for ensuring that the work presented for reassessment is in fact the original term work submitted for evaluation (see Academic Regulation 11).
As a first step, the student should request an informal review with the instructor concerned, and instructors are strongly encouraged to consent. If the informal review process is unsuccessful, the student may ask for the assistance of the Office of the Associate Dean (Studies) in order to facilitate a review through an appeal to the Associate Dean (Studies).
In reviewing your appeal, I note that it does not appear that you have undertaken an informal review with the instructor concerned, Dr. Boris Castel. I am also not convinced that you have clearly articulated the grounds under which the work should be reviewed, as outlined in the regulation, nor that you have provided sufficient supporting documentation (e.g. a copy of the marked essay, the grading scheme and any email correspondence concerning the assignment and marking) with this appeal. As a result I am denying your appeal at this point. However, I will suggest that you contact Dr. Castel and pursue an informal review at your earliest opportunity. Should you remain unsatisfied with the result of Dr. Castel€™s review I will consider an amendment to this appeal at that time. You should however, be aware that arguments regarding a €œlower caliber€ of expectations in this course compared to a Political Studies course or a need for a higher grade to gain entry into law school will not be received sympathetically as these are not the types of extenuating circumstances that would normally warrant granting an appeal.
If you wish to appeal the Associate Dean€™s decision to the Board of Studies, you must submit an appeal to the Board of Studies within 21 days of the date this decision was sent. Guidelines for appealing to the Board of Studies and the appeal form can be found at: http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/students-at-queens/academic-appeals (click on €œBoard of Studies€) Do not use the on-line application for this process. You may contact Mr. Harry Smith, Office of the Ombudsperson for advice on matters of procedure and on obtaining a representative. His office is located in room 237 Robert Sutherland Hall and he can be reached by phone (533-6495) or e-mail (ombuds@queensu.ca).
Sincerely,
J. Hugh Horton, Ph.D.
Associate Dean (Studies)
10007177Modesti
Generated December 9, 2014 at 9:00:10 AM.