- Academic Honesty
- Student Rights and Responsibilities
- Religious Observance
- Grading Scheme and Feedback
- 20% Rule
No examinations or tests collectively worth more than 20% of the final grade in a course will be given during the final 14 calendar days of classes in a term. The exceptions to the rule are classes which regularly meet Friday evenings or on Saturday and/or Sunday at any time, and courses offered in the compressed summer terms.
- Academic Accommodation for Students with Disabilities
Academic Information and Services
Other Services for Students
- Alternate Exam and Test Scheduling
- Services for Mature and Part-Time Students
- Student Financial Services
- Counselling & Disability Services
“The mind is like an umbrella, it functions best when open”
GRADING EVALUATION for AP/HREQ 3100 6.00
E: Excellent; VG: Very Good; G: Good; W: Weak; I: Incomplete; NA: Not Applicable
Common Grading Scheme for Undergraduate Faculties,
Approved by Senate Committee on Examinations and Academic Standards
GRADE, GRADE POINT, PER CENT RANGE AND DESCRIPTION
A+. 9. 90-100%. Exceptional Thorough knowledge of concepts and/or techniques and exceptional skill or great originality in the use of those concepts, techniques in satisfying the requirements of an assignment or course. 90%-100%
A. 8. 80-89%. Excellent Thorough knowledge of concepts and/or techniques with a high degree of skill and/or some elements of originality in satisfying the requirements of an assignment or course.
B+. 7. 75-79%. Very Good Thorough knowledge of concepts and/or techniques with a fairly high degree of skill in the use of those concepts, techniques in satisfying the requirements of an assignment or course.
B. 6. 70-74%. Good Good level of knowledge of concepts and/or techniques together with considerable skill in using them to satisfy the requirements of an assignment or course.
C+. 5. 65-69%. Competent Acceptable level of knowledge of concepts and/or techniques together with considerable skill in using them to satisfy the requirements of an assignment or course.
C. 4. 60-64%. Fairly Fairly Competent Acceptable level of knowledge of concepts and/or techniques together with some skill in using them to satisfy the requirements of an assignment or course.
D+. 3. 55-59%. Passing Slightly better than minimal knowledge of required concepts and/or techniques together with some ability to use them in satisfying the requirements of an assignment or course.
D. 2. 50-54%. Barely Passing Minimum knowledge of concepts and/or techniques needed to satisfy the requirements of an assignment or course.
E. 1. Marginally Failing
F. 0. Failing
FOCUS, CLARITY, CONSISTENCY AND LOGIC
Comprehension of material/concepts discussed
Application of relevant analysis
Logic, clarity, and consistency of analysis: quality not quantity of paragraphs/ pages
Linking together of theory and application
Weak; superficial depth, missing persuasiveness, descriptive/not analytical counter, ill-informed/ opinions/ journalistic/ (stream of consciousness) not thoughtful etc.
Substantiate all arguments raised; defensible position; supportable; thematically arranged; new ideas raised; innovative; courageous; bold; timid; ambitious; too informal; circular; trite\ cliché\ shallow\; how defensible/tenable is the analysis/ etc.
Accuracy and skill at applying concepts/techniques; thoroughness of application
Comprehension of assumptions necessary to render concept/technique/method applicable to problem. Inadequate/ inappropriate use of theory to support argument; unclear theoretical perspective; method inconsistent with theoretical perspective
Absence of rationale for theoretical perspective or method; no recognition of limitations of theory/method adopted
iii) CONTENT: quality of arguments: poorly researched; current trends and theories shortshrifted; appreciation of the literature; related explicitly to the course headings; funnel approach
DEVELOPMENT OF ISSUE(S):
Asking the appropriate questions (very important).
Indication of thinking through the thinking process
Setting out of main points and central issues (grounding the arguments)
Provision of background context and/or history
Integration of course material into development and presentation of argument.
Application of “hourglass” shape of development (general-specific-general). Shape a) general b) specific c) general. Circular? well corroborated, demonstrates critical capacities; clearly stated thesis; levels of articulation; levels of coherence; direction, flow and logical sequencing; too discursive /descriptive; too many issues raised and foci buried; deplete of foci/ ; muddled interpretations/ excessive jargon/ clichés/slogans; Is the Main Argument Supported; How so? What kinds of evidence (empirical?); loses sight of the salient themes
Development: unclear logical or thematic development; relation to course material unclear; incomplete/distorted/contradictory argument
Expression of issue(s) and their respective significance.
Identification and explanation of theory/ methods/ policy implications.
Thesis statement focus. (Significance; utility; originality; too general, too much territory; focus; too narrow - insensitive to related issues).