Petition Letter
Dr. Johanne Bénard
Associate Dean (Studies)
Queen¿¿s University
Dear Dr. Bénard,
I am writing to you today in order to request a review of an instructors¿¿ decision on the grading of my final examination and term work. The course in which I would like to have reviewed is Politics 364 ¿¿ International Peace and Security, which I was enrolled in last semester (Fall 2015).
At the beginning of the semester we were provided with a syllabus which states that ¿¿all components of this course will receive letter grades which, for purposes of calculating your course average, will be translated into numerical equivalents using the Faculty of Arts and Science approved scale¿. The syllabus continues to say, regarding the grading policy, that ¿¿your course average will then be converted to a final letter grade according to Queen¿¿s Official Grade Conversion Scale¿. However, I do not believe that this course policy was being utilized, as both assignments, the participation grade, and the final exam were all provided in numeric format, as opposed to letter grades. The assignments were broken down into their percentage of the total course (for example the final exam was worth 40 and was thus out of 40 marks) and whichever mark you received was given out of 40, but was not given a letter grade. This lack of adherence to the policy stated in the syllabus has resulted in a discrepancy in my final grade in this course.
I received a 9/10 on the Op-Ed assignment, an 18/20 in participation, a 24/30 on the book review, and a 29.5/40 on the final exam, furnishing a final grade of 80.5. If these grades were given in accordance with the stated policy, and made into letter grades I should have received an A+ on the Op-Ed, an A+ for participation, an A- for the book review, and a B for the final exam. According to the Arts and Science approved scale that would mean a 9.3/10 for the Op-Ed, an 18.6/20 for participation, a 24.6/30 for the book review, and a 30/40 for the final exam, furnishing a final grade of 82.5. I would ask that the raw mark prior to the exam be updated from a 51 to a 52.5 in accordance with the policy.
Furthermore, I was told by my professor when I asked to review the final exam that she was not involved in the marking of the final exam, but rather it had been done by a Ph.D student who was not involved in this course. When I inquired about having the professor re-assess my work, I was warned by the Ph.D student that others had tried to have the professor to re-assess their work, and they all received lower grades, which they were forced to accept. Further, during my meeting with the Ph.D. student to review my exam, it became clear that hir expectations for the final exam were extremely different from the expectations of the professor.
We were told by the professor that each ID term (there were 5) would be worth 5 marks, 3 marks for correctly identifying the author and providing a definition, and 2 marks for explaining the relevance of the term OR providing an example. When asked about the section on Nuclear Taboo, the Ph.D. student said my mark was low because I did not provide an example, and that I could have mentioned the Korean, Vietnam, or Gulf War. I provided an explanation for why the term was relevant to the field instead of using an example, which was not sufficient in hir view. Further, the examples suggested were not ever mentioned by the professor or the readings, and thus I do not believe I should be graded according to that standard. The other ID terms were marked in a similar fashion, where I was penalized against a different standard than I was told I would be marked by the professor.
Finally, the essay section of the exam was out of 15 marks, with 2.5 for relevant historical background, 5 marks for a clear argument, 2.5 marks for definitions of key concepts, and 5 marks for illustrative examples to support the main argument. The Ph.D. student¿¿s main concern seemed to stem from my lack of examples, but a key portion of my essay was devoted to developing two case studies, and providing examples of how both the USA and Canada have reacted to terrorism abroad.
In summary, I believe that my final grade in this course was not assigned according to the standards which were set out in the syllabus and by the professor. I attempted to resolve this conflict without the use of this formal mechanism, however I was effectively discouraged from doing so.
Along with this letter I have attached a copy of the syllabus, a copy of my marks as listed on Moodle, the powerpoint which lays out the expectations for the final exam, and a copy of study notes in preparation for the final exam (made based on readings and lectures).
Thank you for reading my appeal, and if I can provide further detail or clarification on any of the matters discussed I would gladly respond by email, telephone, or at a meeting.
Sincerely,
Rylan McCloskey
Associate Dean (Studies)
Queen¿¿s University
Dear Dr. Bénard,
I am writing to you today in order to request a review of an instructors¿¿ decision on the grading of my final examination and term work. The course in which I would like to have reviewed is Politics 364 ¿¿ International Peace and Security, which I was enrolled in last semester (Fall 2015).
At the beginning of the semester we were provided with a syllabus which states that ¿¿all components of this course will receive letter grades which, for purposes of calculating your course average, will be translated into numerical equivalents using the Faculty of Arts and Science approved scale¿. The syllabus continues to say, regarding the grading policy, that ¿¿your course average will then be converted to a final letter grade according to Queen¿¿s Official Grade Conversion Scale¿. However, I do not believe that this course policy was being utilized, as both assignments, the participation grade, and the final exam were all provided in numeric format, as opposed to letter grades. The assignments were broken down into their percentage of the total course (for example the final exam was worth 40 and was thus out of 40 marks) and whichever mark you received was given out of 40, but was not given a letter grade. This lack of adherence to the policy stated in the syllabus has resulted in a discrepancy in my final grade in this course.
I received a 9/10 on the Op-Ed assignment, an 18/20 in participation, a 24/30 on the book review, and a 29.5/40 on the final exam, furnishing a final grade of 80.5. If these grades were given in accordance with the stated policy, and made into letter grades I should have received an A+ on the Op-Ed, an A+ for participation, an A- for the book review, and a B for the final exam. According to the Arts and Science approved scale that would mean a 9.3/10 for the Op-Ed, an 18.6/20 for participation, a 24.6/30 for the book review, and a 30/40 for the final exam, furnishing a final grade of 82.5. I would ask that the raw mark prior to the exam be updated from a 51 to a 52.5 in accordance with the policy.
Furthermore, I was told by my professor when I asked to review the final exam that she was not involved in the marking of the final exam, but rather it had been done by a Ph.D student who was not involved in this course. When I inquired about having the professor re-assess my work, I was warned by the Ph.D student that others had tried to have the professor to re-assess their work, and they all received lower grades, which they were forced to accept. Further, during my meeting with the Ph.D. student to review my exam, it became clear that hir expectations for the final exam were extremely different from the expectations of the professor.
We were told by the professor that each ID term (there were 5) would be worth 5 marks, 3 marks for correctly identifying the author and providing a definition, and 2 marks for explaining the relevance of the term OR providing an example. When asked about the section on Nuclear Taboo, the Ph.D. student said my mark was low because I did not provide an example, and that I could have mentioned the Korean, Vietnam, or Gulf War. I provided an explanation for why the term was relevant to the field instead of using an example, which was not sufficient in hir view. Further, the examples suggested were not ever mentioned by the professor or the readings, and thus I do not believe I should be graded according to that standard. The other ID terms were marked in a similar fashion, where I was penalized against a different standard than I was told I would be marked by the professor.
Finally, the essay section of the exam was out of 15 marks, with 2.5 for relevant historical background, 5 marks for a clear argument, 2.5 marks for definitions of key concepts, and 5 marks for illustrative examples to support the main argument. The Ph.D. student¿¿s main concern seemed to stem from my lack of examples, but a key portion of my essay was devoted to developing two case studies, and providing examples of how both the USA and Canada have reacted to terrorism abroad.
In summary, I believe that my final grade in this course was not assigned according to the standards which were set out in the syllabus and by the professor. I attempted to resolve this conflict without the use of this formal mechanism, however I was effectively discouraged from doing so.
Along with this letter I have attached a copy of the syllabus, a copy of my marks as listed on Moodle, the powerpoint which lays out the expectations for the final exam, and a copy of study notes in preparation for the final exam (made based on readings and lectures).
Thank you for reading my appeal, and if I can provide further detail or clarification on any of the matters discussed I would gladly respond by email, telephone, or at a meeting.
Sincerely,
Rylan McCloskey