Petition Letter
Dear Associate Dean,
I am writing to formally petition for a review of the grading practices applied to my Short Research Proposal in a fourth year Political Science course taught by Dr. Albaugh. This petition arises from both the grade assigned to my work and the subsequent response to my grade appeal which together raise concerns about fairness consistency and the appropriateness of expectations applied to my academic level.
My original appeal was submitted respectfully and in good faith. I acknowledged that my work was open to critique while outlining why I believed the grade did not accurately reflect the substance intent or alignment of my proposal with the assignment instructions. The proposal was framed around the concept of descriptive representation using Hanna Pitkin as its core theoretical anchor and situating this framework within the Canadian context of South Asian political representation. Comparative references to India were included deliberately to contextualize diasporic representation rather than replace the Canadian focus. This approach reflects standard research design in political science and was intended to strengthen the project’s analytical grounding.
In my appeal I also addressed concerns about the clarity of my research question. The proposal examined how South Asian Canadians conceptualize descriptive representation within Canadian political institutions and media environments with attention to perception legitimacy and racialized framing. This focus was reflected consistently across the literature review methodology and proposed contribution. While refinement is always possible the claim that the question was unclear or misaligned with the course theme does not fairly represent the coherence of the project.
Concerns regarding feasibility were particularly troubling given that the scope and structure of the project were discussed during an hour long office hours meeting earlier in the term. During that meeting Dr. Albaugh and I explicitly discussed shaping a project appropriate for a one year MA style timeline as required by the assignment prompt rather than a doctoral dissertation. The mixed methods approach outlined in the proposal was shaped by that guidance. The later characterization of the project as fundamentally infeasible appears inconsistent with those discussions.
Dr. Albaugh’s response to my appeal did not engage substantively with these points:
I am writing to formally petition for a review of the grading practices applied to my Short Research Proposal in a fourth year Political Science course taught by Dr. Albaugh. This petition arises from both the grade assigned to my work and the subsequent response to my grade appeal which together raise concerns about fairness consistency and the appropriateness of expectations applied to my academic level.
My original appeal was submitted respectfully and in good faith. I acknowledged that my work was open to critique while outlining why I believed the grade did not accurately reflect the substance intent or alignment of my proposal with the assignment instructions. The proposal was framed around the concept of descriptive representation using Hanna Pitkin as its core theoretical anchor and situating this framework within the Canadian context of South Asian political representation. Comparative references to India were included deliberately to contextualize diasporic representation rather than replace the Canadian focus. This approach reflects standard research design in political science and was intended to strengthen the project’s analytical grounding.
In my appeal I also addressed concerns about the clarity of my research question. The proposal examined how South Asian Canadians conceptualize descriptive representation within Canadian political institutions and media environments with attention to perception legitimacy and racialized framing. This focus was reflected consistently across the literature review methodology and proposed contribution. While refinement is always possible the claim that the question was unclear or misaligned with the course theme does not fairly represent the coherence of the project.
Concerns regarding feasibility were particularly troubling given that the scope and structure of the project were discussed during an hour long office hours meeting earlier in the term. During that meeting Dr. Albaugh and I explicitly discussed shaping a project appropriate for a one year MA style timeline as required by the assignment prompt rather than a doctoral dissertation. The mixed methods approach outlined in the proposal was shaped by that guidance. The later characterization of the project as fundamentally infeasible appears inconsistent with those discussions.
Dr. Albaugh’s response to my appeal did not engage substantively with these points: