Petition Letter
It is my belief that my assignment for FILM 340 should be regraded according to the same set of standards applied to the assignments of my peers. It is my understanding that the re-marking process only takes into consideration how precisely an assignment adheres to the instructions outlined by the professor, though the unconventional nature of the assignment style in question and the particular dynamics of the online course setting make the circumstances of this case an exception, in my view. Essentially, I argue that in the interest of fairness, my assignment should be re-evaluated to be consistent with the grades assigned to my peers for their work of equal quality.
It is important to note that this course operates almost exclusively online, and all assignments are posted to forums, where students are highly encouraged to view their peers' work and leave feedback. This counts as participation and is factored into students' marks. Every student has unlimited access to the coursework of every one of his or her peers.
Seeing that I had (inexplicably) received a grade of ¿¿F¿ on an assignment that I had completed and submitted on time, I arranged to meet with the course instructor. Initially, she was receptive to my concerns, and after reviewing my assignment briefly on her computer screen, she explained that I must have received an ¿¿F¿ because I had picked an inappropriate topic to explore, and had included an insufficient number of citations according to the assignment instructions. I explained that based on what she was looking for, the assignment instructions had been unclear. She then told me that out of the three hundred students in the course, I had been the only student to fail on these grounds, and therefore, the assignment instructions had been perfectly clear. I pointed out that I still did not see anything wrong with my choice of topic, and that I had seen plenty of other topics just as supposedly inappropriate as my own (or less appropriate, for that matter), and that she had already volunteered the information that I was the only student to fail. When I began listing the other topics I had seen posted online which would also not qualify for a passing grade if her rationale were applied equally, she grew increasingly defensive and hostile, and began repeating that no matter what I said, under no circumstances would she consider changing my grade. When I tried to elaborate on how my assignment had been evaluated inconsistently compared to others, she told me that unless I changed the subject, she wanted me to leave her office.
To be more specific, the professor did not accept that restaurants Milestones and Moxie¿¿s could be considered a ¿¿masstige¿ brand on the luxury/masstige brand spectrum. However, topic choices such as Ben & Jerry¿¿s ice cream, Grey Goose Vodka, Square One Shopping Centre, Samsung and Apple electronics, Ferrero Rocher chocolates, and Johnson & Johnson family products were topics that, according to the professor¿¿s statement, had been acceptable.
Having consulted the Academic Grievance Centre and the office of the university Ombudsman, it is clear to me that the first level of the appeal system, the re-marking process, does not address the specific issue of my (admittedly unusual) situation. A fair regrading of my assignment would require an acceptance that my work cannot automatically fail where the comparable work of my peers does pass.
If for any reason, a representative of the university would like to meet with me to go over specific details or ask questions, I am absolutely open to discussing this matter further. In my view, it should be the priority of any institution of higher learning to ensure that students feel comfortable asking questions and challenging positions which they consider to be misguided. It has always been my understanding that Queen¿¿s University¿¿s mission statement aligns itself with this principle. With this in mind, I respectfully request that my assignment be reviewed according to the same standards applied to the assignments of my classmates, even if this will only become possible at the upper level of the appeal process.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jessica Goddard
It is important to note that this course operates almost exclusively online, and all assignments are posted to forums, where students are highly encouraged to view their peers' work and leave feedback. This counts as participation and is factored into students' marks. Every student has unlimited access to the coursework of every one of his or her peers.
Seeing that I had (inexplicably) received a grade of ¿¿F¿ on an assignment that I had completed and submitted on time, I arranged to meet with the course instructor. Initially, she was receptive to my concerns, and after reviewing my assignment briefly on her computer screen, she explained that I must have received an ¿¿F¿ because I had picked an inappropriate topic to explore, and had included an insufficient number of citations according to the assignment instructions. I explained that based on what she was looking for, the assignment instructions had been unclear. She then told me that out of the three hundred students in the course, I had been the only student to fail on these grounds, and therefore, the assignment instructions had been perfectly clear. I pointed out that I still did not see anything wrong with my choice of topic, and that I had seen plenty of other topics just as supposedly inappropriate as my own (or less appropriate, for that matter), and that she had already volunteered the information that I was the only student to fail. When I began listing the other topics I had seen posted online which would also not qualify for a passing grade if her rationale were applied equally, she grew increasingly defensive and hostile, and began repeating that no matter what I said, under no circumstances would she consider changing my grade. When I tried to elaborate on how my assignment had been evaluated inconsistently compared to others, she told me that unless I changed the subject, she wanted me to leave her office.
To be more specific, the professor did not accept that restaurants Milestones and Moxie¿¿s could be considered a ¿¿masstige¿ brand on the luxury/masstige brand spectrum. However, topic choices such as Ben & Jerry¿¿s ice cream, Grey Goose Vodka, Square One Shopping Centre, Samsung and Apple electronics, Ferrero Rocher chocolates, and Johnson & Johnson family products were topics that, according to the professor¿¿s statement, had been acceptable.
Having consulted the Academic Grievance Centre and the office of the university Ombudsman, it is clear to me that the first level of the appeal system, the re-marking process, does not address the specific issue of my (admittedly unusual) situation. A fair regrading of my assignment would require an acceptance that my work cannot automatically fail where the comparable work of my peers does pass.
If for any reason, a representative of the university would like to meet with me to go over specific details or ask questions, I am absolutely open to discussing this matter further. In my view, it should be the priority of any institution of higher learning to ensure that students feel comfortable asking questions and challenging positions which they consider to be misguided. It has always been my understanding that Queen¿¿s University¿¿s mission statement aligns itself with this principle. With this in mind, I respectfully request that my assignment be reviewed according to the same standards applied to the assignments of my classmates, even if this will only become possible at the upper level of the appeal process.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jessica Goddard