Access to View Assignments, Tests, Projects, and Examinations
For any graded course components (e.g., assignments, tests, projects, quizzes) which add up to a maximum of 70 per cent of the final course grade, students can expect to receive the grade and the associated feedback within a timely manner.
Instructors are required to hold back grades on deliverables or other graded course components (such as participation marks) that constitute at least 30 per cent of any final course grade pending a review of final grades by respective program’s Vice-Dean.
Any graded deliverable is the property of the University and is not typically returned to students. Students may, however, request view-only access to any graded deliverable. Please see below for more information.
Procedures for Academic Review
Students may appeal a grade assigned by an instructor (including any component of the course or the final course grade). All students, regardless of whether they are contemplating a grade appeal, are encouraged to meet with their instructor and discuss their graded deliverables and other graded course components (such as participation marks). Such meetings provide pedagogical opportunities during which the instructor can point out where and how the student could have performed better or correct any arithmetical error in grade calculation.
Students may also dispute the applicability of any academic rule or policy. The appropriate venue for modifying existing policies or proposing new policies is with whichever body has jurisdiction over the policy in question. There is no appeal process regarding admissions decisions.
Note: All steps of the academic review process (1 – a review, 2 – reread, or 3 – appeal) can result in an upward or downward adjustment of the grade, or no change at all.
Step 1: Informal Resolution – Review Request
If a student believes that the grade has been calculated erroneously or did not reasonably reflect the delivered work, they should seek clarification with the instructor within eight weeks of the respective grade release. The grade must be issued before a dispute can be initiated. Note that in cases of a final grade dispute, all course components will be considered in the review request.
Step 2: Rereading of Course Components
Should informal resolution fail to resolve the matter, the student may request a reread by an independent party (“the reader”) within eight weeks of the respective grade release. The student must complete a Petition for Grading Reassessment Form (PDF) and submit a letter outlining the reasons for the request and detailing the specific areas of concern. The student must provide as much detail as possible including supporting documentation in support of their rationale. This letter will be read by both the Academic Director of the student’s program and the reader. The letter should not include the student’s name to preserve anonymity to the reader. In the case of a final grade review, the School will have all course components reread considering the arguments presented. Note that participation points or presentations are not subject to a reread, even if class recordings are available, and requests engaging with these course components proceed directly to Step 3.
There is a $36 fee for a reread. In all cases, all segments of the piece or pieces of work will be considered in a reread request. The fee must be submitted with the completed form to the Registrar’s Office within eight weeks of the respective grade release date. If the grade is changed as a result of this review, the reread of $36 will be refunded.
For reread requests:
- The Academic Director of the student’s program will request the Area Coordinator of the functional area relevant to the petition to draw up a list of names of independent parties to conduct the reread (excluding the instructor for the course under petition).
- The Area Coordinator will select a reader from the eligible list to reread all component(s).
- The reread must be done in accordance with the course instructor’s marking scheme and in comparison with a range of other submissions from the same graded component(s).
- The reader will provide their marking of the component(s) to the Academic Director.
- The Academic Director of the student’s program will issue a decision on the petition based on the reread and be available to discuss it with the student.
Step 3: Formal Appeal to the Rotman School of Management Graduate Department Academic Appeals Committee (GDAAC)
Should Steps 1 and 2 fail to resolve the matter, the student may then make a formal appeal within eight weeks of the release of the reread decision or, if Step 2 is not applicable then within eight weeks of grade release. The request must be made in writing using a Notice of Appeal Form (PDF) to the Chair of the Graduate Department Academic Appeals Committee (GDAAC).
Step 4: Appeal to the Graduate Studies Appeals Board (GAAB) of the School of Graduate Studies
Following Steps 1-3, students have the option to the Graduate Academic Appeals Board (GAAB) (PDF). Students must file a Notice of Appeal Form (PDF) to initiative the process within eight weeks of receipt of the communication at the immediately prior level of appeal.
Note: All policies, rules, and regulations are subject to ongoing review and revision by the Rotman School of Management.
Graduate Department Academic Appeals Committee
The Graduate Department Academic Appeals Committee (GDAAC) is established under the authority of the Vice Dean, MBA Programs and Vice Dean, Undergraduate and Specialized Programs (hereafter referred to as the “Vice Dean”) at the beginning of each academic year. The Committee is advisory to the Vice-Deans, who are by the Committee’s recommendation. Note that the committee members may serve for more than one year.
Within the overall academic appeals procedure, the GDAAC has a high level of discipline-specific expertise to judge academic matters in an appeal, and plays a critical role in the overall appeals procedure. The committee may only consider academic matters.
Decisions related to an admission to an academic program are not subject to appeal. Issues related to non-academic matters (e.g. fees) are not considered by the committee.
Rotman Committee Membership 2022-23
- Fotini Tolias; Michael Khan (Alternate)
- Chen-Bo Zhong; Ole-Kristian Hope, Dan Trefler (Alternate)
- Byung Soo Lee; TBD (Alternate)
- Katherine Reilly
- Jose Perez Ballester (Alternate)
- Curtis Lake
GDAAC enquiries may be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.