Lecturer puts student complaints down to bad weather

University of Edinburgh officials have defended a head of subject who responded to student concerns regarding marking and academic feedback by suggesting their anxiety was caused by the weather and the economic downturn.

Professor John Peterson, head of subject for politics and international relations, sent a letter via email to all students in his department, saying: “I have received an inordinate number of representations this year from students wishing to query their essay marks.

“I suspect there are multiple reasons why, besides lack of awareness of our procedures, including the difficulty of avoiding the edginess and gloom inevitably induced by recession.”

The letter—which comes as the university makes high-profile attempts to address the issue of poor academic feedback following a dismal showing the National Student Survey—was forwarded to The Journal by a student within Prof. Peterson’s subject, who wished to remain anonymous.

A number of student of politics and international relations approached by The Journal have expressed their disgust at the letter; one said: “It’s totally patronising, and completely misses the point.”

Prof. Peterson begins his letter: “We would probably all benefit if you read what follows carefully,” before quantifying his department’s efforts to combat poor academic feedback as consisting of “doing a better job in future when new students arrive at SSPS starting next autumn [and] writing to you now.”

Addressing students concerned about their coursework grades and the way they were assessed, Prof Peterson replies: “Your essay marks are 'final for now'," before warning, "you have a right to appeal a mark, but you should not take the decision to appeal lightly: your mark can go up or down when 2nd marked, in line with standard academic practice in the UK.” 

When contacted by The Journal and forwarded Prof Peterson’s letter, Professor Anthony Good, Head of School for Social and Political Science, and Professor April McMahon, Head of the College of Humanities and Social Science, issued a joint statement defending Prof Peterson’s actions.

“I should say in general that we are both somewhat baffled as to why the letter from Professor Peterson should be a subject of any controversy,” said Prof. Good.

“It is entirely appropriate for a head of subject to seek to provide greater transparency regarding assessment and feedback procedures, which is the clear purpose of the letter sent to politics/IR students.

“In fact, the letter itself is part of that feedback, written because Professor Peterson was concerned that these procedures were partly misunderstood by students.”

Asked if it was appropriate for a head of subject to discourage students who, in good faith, felt that their coursework had been unfairly assessed from making an appeal, Profs Good and McMahon replied: “Students need to have this information and weigh up the consequences of making an appeal.”

Answering suggestions that the letter is counterproductive to the university’s efforts to improve the standard of academic feedback, teaching and student-staff relations, Profs Good and McMahon said: “Prof. Peterson's letter is a useful contribution to helping students understand how feedback works within his own discipline.

“It is entirely appropriate for a head of subject to seek to allay student anxieties. The economic climate clearly affects graduate employability, so it seems obvious that student concerns over degree marks will be heightened as a result. Social science students, above all, are bound to be aware of this!”

Despite insisting that “the letter itself is quite clearly and explicitly part of the process of improving feedback this year,” Prof. Good was unaware of the letter when first contacted by The Journal, and needed to be sent a copy.

EUSA president Adam Ramsay spoke damningly of Prof. Peterson's attempts to improved academic standards within his department. “The point isn’t one letter,” he told The Journal.

“As head of subject, Professor John Peterson clearly needs to be focusing on teaching; however, he has recently given up some of the time he spends on teaching in favour of research. He is hardly leading by example in the effort to improve teaching and feedback quality.

“Over the years, Mr Peterson has failed to deliver the quality of teaching that it is his job to provide.”

Prof. Peterson adds towards the end of his letter: “We hope you all get a 1st or distinction – although I’m afraid that is unlikely. But you need to take responsibility for your own education if you are to graduate with the best results of which you are capable. You’ve probably heard me say this before, maybe repeatedly, but if you do the work, you are likely to do just fine. And I promise you that, eventually, spring will come and the recession will ease.”

He signs off: “I promise you that, eventually, spring will come, the recession will ease, etc. Work hard, have fun.”

Prof Peterson refused to comment when contacted by The Journal.