Anyone ever appealed a grade in SFU?

[ASG111]

Anyone ever appealed a grade in SFU and managed to get success?

I received a mark in a course and was not too happy about it. The instructor said the Average for the grade was going to be a B-, and I thought at the beginning, that his intention of grading between an A to a C... making average around B- or so. Throughout 50% of the course which consisted of assignments, presentation and group project, the class pretty much received a B+, B and B- marks, making the average to a B.

A 50% of the final mark was from exams... I am not sure about the mark for my final exam but I ended up a B... It seems really unfair that he hardly gives out an As and such, so for that I"m going to appeal because the grading seems vague with no comments and such.\

With that said, I've been reading about the policies as outlined
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/teaching/t20-01.htm

and it seems that a student's mark will increase, decrease, or stay the same... I don't want to take the risk of decreasing, but I was wondering whether you have had any experiences in doing so and manage to boost or decrease or grade.

Please share your experience. Thanks

[bcedhk]

Originally Posted by ASG111

Anyone ever appealed a grade in SFU and managed to get success?

I received a mark in a course and was not too happy about it. The instructor said the Average for the grade was going to be a B-, and I thought at the beginning, that his intention of grading between an A to a C... making average around B- or so. Throughout 50% of the course which consisted of assignments, presentation and group project, the class pretty much received a B+, B and B- marks, making the average to a B.

A 50% of the final mark was from exams... I am not sure about the mark for my final exam but I ended up a B... It seems really unfair that he hardly gives out an As and such, so for that I"m going to appeal because the grading seems vague with no comments and such.\

With that said, I've been reading about the policies as outlined
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/teaching/t20-01.htm

and it seems that a student's mark will increase, decrease, or stay the same... I don't want to take the risk of decreasing, but I was wondering whether you have had any experiences in doing so and manage to boost or decrease or grade.

Please share your experience. Thanks

it seems you just wanted a better mark. Im sure your B was well deserved.

[Harryt]

I would say leave it...

I really never understand some people about marks. I used to be like that too. Then, when got out there in the real world. I found out marks don't mean anything. It's all about work experience, and knowledge. Marks don't mean the person knows a lot or knows very little. Because, marks can always be given more or less dependent on profs.

So really.. I don't get why everyone goes crazy over marks. Just do your best and move on, and MAKE SURE you understood what you learned. Because, at the end of the day what you learned is what you will carry on to the world field. Just because you get a F or C doesn't mean you didn't learn anything about that class.

I would say leave it, because your mark isn't going to make a huge difference if they fix it. What? at the most it will go up by 1 grade? Is it worth the hassle? If you had a C- or C I could see you going for it. But for a B+... I don't know about it.

[TheNewGirl]

Sadly, most departments in SFU have a policy of marking on a curve which can be to your benifit or detriment. I've had classes where I walked away with a 60% that turned out an A, and classes where an 87% equalled a C-. This practice gives instructors a great deal of leeway over their grading practices and the ability, essentially to justify nearly anything. If your proff's curve only allows the top 2% to have an A (which may be only 1-3 students in your class dependant on size) that's all he's going to give out.

You can appeal to the department head. Had you gotten a C - I would, but for a B I wouldn't be bothered unless you have a scholarship or academic position that requires you maintaining an high GPA. You could also speak to your proff and ask WHY you got a B, he is obligated to give you a clear break down of your mark and where you sit in relation to the rest of your class mates.

[Harryt]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Sadly, most departments in SFU have a policy of marking on a curve which can be to your benifit or detriment. I've had classes where I walked away with a 60% that turned out an A, and classes where an 87% equalled a C-. This practice gives instructors a great deal of leeway over their grading practices and the ability, essentially to justify nearly anything. If your proff's curve only allows the top 2% to have an A (which may be only 1-3 students in your class dependant on size) that's all he's going to give out.

You can appeal to the department head. Had you gotten a C - I would, but for a B I wouldn't be bothered unless you have a scholarship or academic position that requires you maintaining an high GPA.

True, missed the curve. I know my econ class at sfu has a bell curve and less than 10% can get A's... So if your class average is a A, then obviously like TheNewGirl stated. Then your marks will be fairly low possibly C-.

Trust me friend, just move on and let it go. The break is over now just enjoy your time off till next semester.

[avaj]

Originally Posted by ASG111

Anyone ever appealed a grade in SFU and managed to get success?

I received a mark in a course and was not too happy about it. The instructor said the Average for the grade was going to be a B-, and I thought at the beginning, that his intention of grading between an A to a C... making average around B- or so. Throughout 50% of the course which consisted of assignments, presentation and group project, the class pretty much received a B+, B and B- marks, making the average to a B.

A 50% of the final mark was from exams... I am not sure about the mark for my final exam but I ended up a B... It seems really unfair that he hardly gives out an As and such, so for that I"m going to appeal because the grading seems vague with no comments and such.\

With that said, I've been reading about the policies as outlined
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/teaching/t20-01.htm

and it seems that a student's mark will increase, decrease, or stay the same... I don't want to take the risk of decreasing, but I was wondering whether you have had any experiences in doing so and manage to boost or decrease or grade.

Please share your experience. Thanks

I personally never done it before. But I heard my friend telling me that it was tough. And just be aware of that your grade may GO DOWN. If it's like a course designed with writing papers, then i suggest you not to tak the risk

[azn_beef]

sounds like good advice for the ECON 301..

[Professir]

Originally Posted by Harryt

I would say leave it...

I really never understand some people about marks. I used to be like that too. Then, when got out there in the real world. I found out marks don't mean anything. It's all about work experience, and knowledge. Marks don't mean the person knows a lot or knows very little. Because, marks can always be given more or less dependent on profs.

So really.. I don't get why everyone goes crazy over marks. Just do your best and move on, and MAKE SURE you understood what you learned. Because, at the end of the day what you learned is what you will carry on to the world field. Just because you get a F or C doesn't mean you didn't learn anything about that class.

I would say leave it, because your mark isn't going to make a huge difference if they fix it. What? at the most it will go up by 1 grade? Is it worth the hassle? If you had a C- or C I could see you going for it. But for a B+... I don't know about it.

dude.... don't you think someone with a 4.0 would probably be more knowledgeable in their field than someone with a 3.3?

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by Harryt

I would say leave it...

I really never understand some people about marks. I used to be like that too. Then, when got out there in the real world. I found out marks don't mean anything. It's all about work experience, and knowledge. Marks don't mean the person knows a lot or knows very little. Because, marks can always be given more or less dependent on profs.

So really.. I don't get why everyone goes crazy over marks. Just do your best and move on, and MAKE SURE you understood what you learned. Because, at the end of the day what you learned is what you will carry on to the world field. Just because you get a F or C doesn't mean you didn't learn anything about that class.

I would say leave it, because your mark isn't going to make a huge difference if they fix it. What? at the most it will go up by 1 grade? Is it worth the hassle? If you had a C- or C I could see you going for it. But for a B+... I don't know about it.

how do you know he has no plans for grad school?

also, quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by ASG111

Anyone ever appealed a grade in SFU and managed to get success?

I received a mark in a course and was not too happy about it. The instructor said the Average for the grade was going to be a B-, and I thought at the beginning, that his intention of grading between an A to a C... making average around B- or so. Throughout 50% of the course which consisted of assignments, presentation and group project, the class pretty much received a B+, B and B- marks, making the average to a B.

A 50% of the final mark was from exams... I am not sure about the mark for my final exam but I ended up a B... It seems really unfair that he hardly gives out an As and such, so for that I"m going to appeal because the grading seems vague with no comments and such.\

With that said, I've been reading about the policies as outlined
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/teaching/t20-01.htm

and it seems that a student's mark will increase, decrease, or stay the same... I don't want to take the risk of decreasing, but I was wondering whether you have had any experiences in doing so and manage to boost or decrease or grade.

Please share your experience. Thanks

It's tough to appeal a grade based on the fact you don't agree with the grading structure. But if you honestly thing you scored better than given, you can always ask the professor to take another look and double check your marks and/or regrade your work.

In my case I remember one class where I received a final grade that was lower than I expected. I asked the prof to take a look and he discovered there was an error putting my marks into the system, and so my grade was adjusted the next day.

[Harryt]

Originally Posted by Eff-1

how do you know he has no plans for grad school?

also, quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

Like I said.. some companies will, but really at the end of the day they don't care as much compared to work experience. If you worked with Shaw for 1-2 yrs and apply at Telus, they won't give a crap if you got a C- in a math class etc... Most companies WANT to know you can get the job done. Marks don't always mean you are better at something. I know tons of people, who had lower marks than some of the other students and yet have better jobs. It's call about what you know.

Marks as you know at SFU are changed all the time. Some profs curve marks where someone at 55% gets a 90%. So does that mean this person is suddenly super smart? It will look so on paper!

You can go ahead and believe what you want, but I'm throwing in an opinion. If you don't like it just ignore my post. I'm not here to convince you specifically. This is for the OP.

Originally Posted by Professir

dude.... don't you think someone with a 4.0 would probably be more knowledgeable in their field than someone with a 3.3?

Not really, read above. Curving of marks can give even a low graded student a high mark. Lets say the 4.0 student applies for a job, where as the 3.3 student already has 1 yr work experience. I think the 3.3 student would have a higher chance at getting the job. They have to spend less $ on training the 3.3 person over the 4.0 person.

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by Harryt

Like I said.. some companies will, but really at the end of the day they don't care as much compared to work experience. If you worked with Shaw for 1-2 yrs and apply at Telus, they won't give a crap if you got a C- in a math class etc... Most companies WANT to know you can get the job done. Marks don't always mean you are better at something. I know tons of people, who had lower marks than some of the other students and yet have better jobs. It's call about what you know.

Quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS, if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

[Harryt]

Originally Posted by Eff-1

Quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS, if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

Yes.. you copied what you wrote above. I already stated that above as well. That's just a few companies, and had you been working for say MS and applied at IBM, they will look more into your work experience than marks.

[TRDood]

Marks matter, if you want to continue on with grad school. Does marks add to your job experience? No. Does marks lead you to more open doors? Yes.

As for the OP, which class is this for and who is the prof? I might be able to tell you what are you chances because it really depends. No one likes to be challenged with their marking scheme, so you are in a losing battle. Most of the time, profs don't even mark exams, TAs do, so basically you are asking the prof to do more work. Do you think you are in a winning battle?

For myself, I have inquired about my mark, and made sure all my scores were added up and recorded correctly. If there are no mistakes, then I don't see a point for appealing because everyone's grade is on a curve.

It just creates more work for you and the prof, do you think he/she will be happy having you bothering them during time off?

[dachinesedude]

i'm pretty sure TA's mark easier than profs, getting the prof to mark is just asking for it

[TheNewGirl]

Originally Posted by dachinesedude

i'm pretty sure TA's mark easier than profs, getting the prof to mark is just asking for it

Having worked for a few differant proffs as an RA and many many TAs while I was at SFU I can say that at least in the department I worked in this was very very true.

All the TAs and RAs that I have worked with or had to deal with as a student have been much more compassionate and lenient to the students than the proffs. I've known TAs to out right intentionally mark easier then their proffs have requested they do even because the proffs in my department often made tests that were far too diffecult (See the instance above where I noted I once got a 60% in a class and this being in the top 10% of the whole class got me an A... the average was about 49% and that was WITH the TA even giving us what hints he could about the exam ahead of time).

[Professir]

Originally Posted by Harryt

Not really, read above. Curving of marks can give even a low graded student a high mark. Lets say the 4.0 student applies for a job, where as the 3.3 student already has 1 yr work experience. I think the 3.3 student would have a higher chance at getting the job. They have to spend less $ on training the 3.3 person over the 4.0 person.

yeah, but on average, a 4.0 will be smarter than a 3.3 student regardless of the bell curve. if someone gets 68% in a class, and gets curved up to a 90%, it just means that the class material was difficult and hence they deserved an A+ since they did better than the majority of their classmates. It's very seldom that you get an entire class of smarty pants, or an entire class of dumbasses, where bell curving will hand out undeserving students substantially higher or lower grades.

sure, a lot of the stuff learned in school doesn't apply to work in the real world. however, that doesn't mean your grades don't matter. your GPA is an accurate representation of your intelligence and work ethic, both of which carry on into your career. sure, if you hire a 3.3 whose already been trained over a 4.0 who hasn't, you can save a bit of money. but how do you know that the 4.0 won't outperform the 3.3 by a considerable amount? If your logic is true, why do big companies like Goldmans, McKinsey, Microsoft, rarely hire people whose average grades are lower than an A-? universities don't hand out 4.0s for nothing.

[Harryt]

Originally Posted by Professir

yeah, but on average, a 4.0 will be smarter than a 3.3 student regardless of the bell curve. if someone gets 68% in a class, and gets curved up to a 90%, it just means that the class material was difficult and hence they deserved an A+ since they did better than the majority of their classmates. It's very seldom that you get an entire class of smarty pants, or an entire class of dumbasses, where bell curving will hand out undeserving students substantially higher or lower grades.

sure, a lot of the stuff learned in school doesn't apply to work in the real world. however, that doesn't mean your grades don't matter. your GPA is an accurate representation of your intelligence and work ethic, both of which carry on into your career. sure, if you hire a 3.3 whose already been trained over a 4.0 who hasn't, you can save a bit of money. but how do you know that the 4.0 won't outperform the 3.3 by a considerable amount? If your logic is true, why do big companies like Goldmans, McKinsey, Microsoft, rarely hire people whose average grades are lower than an A-? universities don't hand out 4.0s for nothing.

If the material was to hard, then none of the students are considered smart. Material is NEVER hard, it's a matter of how much of it you can comprehend. That means most of the students cannot comprehend all the material taught, which isn't a good thing either.

The 4.0 wouldn't outperform the 3.3 at least not in the short run. I've been there in the field and I'm saying this from experience. You guys can believe what you want. When you get there you will realize it. It's like me trying to explain something to you, that you cannot understand till you get their yourself. So I will leave it here and let you feel it when you get there in 10-20 yrs of time with work experience.

[Harryt]

Originally Posted by TRDood

Marks matter, if you want to continue on with grad school. Does marks add to your job experience? No. Does marks lead you to more open doors? Yes.

As for the OP, which class is this for and who is the prof? I might be able to tell you what are you chances because it really depends. No one likes to be challenged with their marking scheme, so you are in a losing battle. Most of the time, profs don't even mark exams, TAs do, so basically you are asking the prof to do more work. Do you think you are in a winning battle?

For myself, I have inquired about my mark, and made sure all my scores were added up and recorded correctly. If there are no mistakes, then I don't see a point for appealing because everyone's grade is on a curve.

It just creates more work for you and the prof, do you think he/she will be happy having you bothering them during time off?

Doors ALWAYS open. Just because one closes, doesn't mean it won't open again. Many people have had doors closed on them, but they found ways to open them. I'm not saying marks DON'T matter. I'm stating they matter only to an extent. And that extent seems to be getter smaller and smaller over the years as I've noticed.

[bomberben69]

Originally Posted by Professir

yeah, but on average, a 4.0 will be smarter than a 3.3 student regardless of the bell curve. if someone gets 68% in a class, and gets curved up to a 90%, it just means that the class material was difficult and hence they deserved an A+ since they did better than the majority of their classmates. It's very seldom that you get an entire class of smarty pants, or an entire class of dumbasses, where bell curving will hand out undeserving students substantially higher or lower grades.

sure, a lot of the stuff learned in school doesn't apply to work in the real world. however, that doesn't mean your grades don't matter. your GPA is an accurate representation of your intelligence and work ethic, both of which carry on into your career. sure, if you hire a 3.3 whose already been trained over a 4.0 who hasn't, you can save a bit of money. but how do you know that the 4.0 won't outperform the 3.3 by a considerable amount? If your logic is true, why do big companies like Goldmans, McKinsey, Microsoft, rarely hire people whose average grades are lower than an A-? universities don't hand out 4.0s for nothing.

+1

Originally Posted by Harryt

If the material was to hard, then none of the students are considered smart. Material is NEVER hard, it's a matter of how much of it you can comprehend. That means most of the students cannot comprehend all the material taught, which isn't a good thing either.

The 4.0 wouldn't outperform the 3.3 at least not in the short run. I've been there in the field and I'm saying this from experience. You guys can believe what you want. When you get there you will realize it. It's like me trying to explain something to you, that you cannot understand till you get their yourself. So I will leave it here and let you feel it when you get there in 10-20 yrs of time with work experience.

you're beyond retarded. i can't even find the word to describe how low you have sunk in terms of inteligence.

[bomberben69]

harryt probably works at mcdonalds, hence GPA is of no importance to him and his employers.

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by Harryt

Yes.. you copied what you wrote above. I already stated that above as well. That's just a few companies, and had you been working for say MS and applied at IBM, they will look more into your work experience than marks.

I'll try again, only because I feel sorry for you.

Quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS, if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

Quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS, if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

Quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS, if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

Quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS, if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

Quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS, if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

Quite a few companies do look at your grades, for example Pepsi, IBM or TELUS, if you apply for their post-grad management/leadership programs.

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by Harryt

And that extent seems to be getter smaller and smaller over the years as I've noticed.

This is about someone who is clearly is still in school and likely isn't concerned about his odds about getting a job 5 or 10 years from now. He wants a job right after graduation, when your marks could have the most importance. In case you didn't notice this is the campus forum, not employment forum for old guys named harryt.

[TRDood]

Originally Posted by Eff-1

This is about someone who is clearly is still in school and likely isn't concerned about his odds about getting a job 5 or 10 years from now. He wants a job right after graduation, when your marks could have the most importance. In case you didn't notice this is the campus forum, not employment forum for old guys named harryt.

Exactly. As a fresh graduate, the primary signal for employers to distinguish whether a person is productive or not is by their education. I am not saying everyone who have completed their PhD is a genius, but education and skills must have a position correlation and that is one of the factors for hiring.

This is another reason why we have an education system. From Harryt's logic, NO ONE should go to school and start gaining work experience right when we know how to walk and speak.

Having a specialized degree cuts down A LOT of competition. Well, there's the connection story, but that's different.

[Harryt]

Originally Posted by TRDood

This is another reason why we have an education system. From Harryt's logic, NO ONE should go to school and start gaining work experience right when we know how to walk and speak.

Having a specialized degree cuts down A LOT of competition. Well, there's the connection story, but that's different.

I wasn't referring to a fresh grad student. I was refering to a student, who has worked or/and done 5 semesters of co-op.

Guessing everyone is "assuming" I am referring to fresh grad students.