Describe your repeat policy and review path. Makeform creates a grade replacement form for both course attempts, eligibility questions, supporting files, and consistent staff review.
Route petitions to email, Google Sheets, Slack, and Zapier.
Sample prompts for the builder
Choose a scenario, tailor its policy details, or send it to the builder. The example structure does not decide eligibility.
Audience
Undergraduates petitioning after a completed retake
Format
Petition with two course-attempt records
Prompt size
293 chars
Example form structure
Petition with two course-attempt records
Student ID, program, and contact
Original course attempt
Repeated course attempt
Reason for this petition
Supporting documentation
Suggested routing tags
Adviser review
Registrar review
More information needed
Ask for both course attempts separately. A course code without term, credits, and posted grade may not identify the exact transcript records staff must compare.
Step 1
Identify
student and both course attempts
Step 2
Check
policy criteria and required evidence
Step 3
Review
adviser, department, or registrar routing
Step 4
Record
status and decision communicated consistently
Why structure the petition
Staff must match two records, apply current policy, and see exception evidence. Structured intake gathers that context before review.
Separate original and repeated-course sections keep each term, grade, and credit value clear.
Conditional fields reveal equivalency evidence or an exception rationale only when relevant.
Routing tags distinguish incomplete, adviser, department, registrar, and clarification stages.
Adapt to campus policy
Use your institution's program, course-level, repeat-count, and timing criteria.
Capture posted grades and identifiers for both attempts.
Request a syllabus or equivalency record when course codes differ.
Add adviser comments while keeping registrar processing separate.
Reveal explanations and uploads for local exception categories.
Build the workflow
Start with published criteria, then test typical and exception paths before sharing the form.
Specify who may petition, equivalency rules, deadlines, and reviewing offices.
Use current institutional criteria, require record-matching fields, and link catalog guidance.
Test matching, external, and exception examples to verify conditional questions and files.
Share one link, notify reviewers, and keep intake status separate from record changes.
Choose a collection method
Your institution decides the petition; the form gives reviewers consistent information.
Field guide
Align these six sections with your catalog, registrar procedures, and records system.
Student identity
Collect authorized identifiers plus contact and program details. Do not rely on name alone.
Original attempt
Give the first attempt a required section so staff can locate the precise record.
Repeated attempt
Repeat those fields for the later attempt and ask whether its final grade is posted.
Eligibility screening
Translate local rules into neutral structured questions that organize review without promising replacement.
Explanation and evidence
Use a focused explanation and conditional uploads. Name acceptable document categories.
Attestation and routing
End with an accuracy attestation and state that submission begins review. Use internal tags for ownership and status.
Related education tools
Build connected advising, registration, transcript, and academic-record intake.
Collect goals, concerns, and course-planning context before an advising appointment.
Open toolGather proposed courses and schedule preferences in a structured student request.
Open toolBuild course registration intake with student, section, and enrollment details.
Open toolCollect delivery, recipient, and record details for a transcript request workflow.
Open toolOrganize broader student-record requests and route them to the responsible office.
Open toolHelp students and advisers capture requirements, goals, and future-term plans.
Open toolFAQ
Practical answers for registrars, academic advisers, and departments designing a consistent petition process.
A grade replacement form is a petition submitted after a retake. It identifies both attempts and gathers policy questions, explanations, and evidence. The institution decides the outcome under its own rules.
Collect student ID, program, and contact details. For both attempts, require course code, title, term, credits, and grade. Add policy questions, an explanation, conditional uploads, an attestation, and reviewer routing.
That depends on local procedure. Ask whether the repeat is complete and its final grade posted. A conditional message can redirect a pending request without making an eligibility decision.
Yes. If the code changed or the repeat was external, reveal fields for institution, course description, syllabus, and equivalency evidence. Route it to the appropriate academic unit when required.
Show standard criteria, then reveal an exception category, rationale, and relevant uploads. Label it a request for review, separate internal comments, and avoid suggesting that submission ensures replacement.
Yes. Makeform provides unlimited free forms and responses. You can generate, edit, publish, and collect petitions without a submission cap; the paid tier only removes the Makeform badge.
Use stages such as incomplete, adviser review, department review, registrar-ready, processed, and clarification needed. Route notifications appropriately, but do not treat automation as proof of a record change.
Use neutral terms such as petition, request, review, and decision. State near the attestation that submission starts review and promises no outcome. Confirm receipt without announcing approval.
Replace incomplete email petitions with structured intake.
