Petition Letter
Dear Associate Dean (Undergraduate Studies),
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to formally request a review of my final exam grade for BCHM 315, which I received following the informal review process with Dr. Robert Campbell. While I appreciate the feedback provided during our meeting, I believe there are still valid concerns that were not fully addressed. I would like to present these issues for your consideration.
One primary issue involves the marking of the question regarding the role of ψ residues in AFP binding. In my response, I explained that these residues contribute to stabilizing the protein structure, indirectly supporting the binding of AFP to ice. Dr. Campbell noted that my answer did not align fully with the expected response regarding the stabilization of the protein structure. Still, I believe my explanation was valid, focusing on the broader stabilization role of the ψ residues. My response was not given partial credit when it was discussed during our meeting that they contribute to stabilizing the protein structure. As a result, I feel that my answer was under-elevated compared to the understanding I demonstrated in my response.
Additionally, the inhibitor question in this exam raised concerns regarding the absence of the NH bond, which is typically found in substrates that can be cleaved. However, this detail was not emphasized in the course materials, lecture notes, or past exams, leading me to focus on the broader structural aspects of the inhibitor. After reviewing the 2022 and 2021 past exam questions and their respective answer keys, I found that similar questions about inhibitors did not require explicitly identifying the absence of an NH group as a key differentiating factor. As students, we are strongly encouraged to rely on the materials you provide—such as lecture notes, past exams, and answer keys—not only to guide our exam preparation but also to understand how to apply our knowledge and practice answering questions effectively. The past exam questions and answers from 2022 and 2021 did not emphasize the absence of the NH group as a critical point for similar questions about inhibitors. The lack of alignment between what was emphasized in the course and what was expected in the exam contributes to my concerns about the fairness and consistency of the grading process.
As I do not have access to my marked final exam, I have included all relevant documents such as the course syllabus, the marking rubric, and any correspondence with Dr. Campbell during the informal review. These documents provide the necessary context for my concerns and support my request for a review.
In conclusion, I respectfully request a formal review of my final exam grade, as I believe my responses were not fully evaluated based on the course materials and marking scheme. I feel that my grade does not accurately reflect my understanding of the material, and I would appreciate your consideration of my concerns.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Rinusha Piranthapan (20354955)
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to formally request a review of my final exam grade for BCHM 315, which I received following the informal review process with Dr. Robert Campbell. While I appreciate the feedback provided during our meeting, I believe there are still valid concerns that were not fully addressed. I would like to present these issues for your consideration.
One primary issue involves the marking of the question regarding the role of ψ residues in AFP binding. In my response, I explained that these residues contribute to stabilizing the protein structure, indirectly supporting the binding of AFP to ice. Dr. Campbell noted that my answer did not align fully with the expected response regarding the stabilization of the protein structure. Still, I believe my explanation was valid, focusing on the broader stabilization role of the ψ residues. My response was not given partial credit when it was discussed during our meeting that they contribute to stabilizing the protein structure. As a result, I feel that my answer was under-elevated compared to the understanding I demonstrated in my response.
Additionally, the inhibitor question in this exam raised concerns regarding the absence of the NH bond, which is typically found in substrates that can be cleaved. However, this detail was not emphasized in the course materials, lecture notes, or past exams, leading me to focus on the broader structural aspects of the inhibitor. After reviewing the 2022 and 2021 past exam questions and their respective answer keys, I found that similar questions about inhibitors did not require explicitly identifying the absence of an NH group as a key differentiating factor. As students, we are strongly encouraged to rely on the materials you provide—such as lecture notes, past exams, and answer keys—not only to guide our exam preparation but also to understand how to apply our knowledge and practice answering questions effectively. The past exam questions and answers from 2022 and 2021 did not emphasize the absence of the NH group as a critical point for similar questions about inhibitors. The lack of alignment between what was emphasized in the course and what was expected in the exam contributes to my concerns about the fairness and consistency of the grading process.
As I do not have access to my marked final exam, I have included all relevant documents such as the course syllabus, the marking rubric, and any correspondence with Dr. Campbell during the informal review. These documents provide the necessary context for my concerns and support my request for a review.
In conclusion, I respectfully request a formal review of my final exam grade, as I believe my responses were not fully evaluated based on the course materials and marking scheme. I feel that my grade does not accurately reflect my understanding of the material, and I would appreciate your consideration of my concerns.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Rinusha Piranthapan (20354955)