Whose Time It Was
An essay of 1200 to 1800 words arguing about how one queue distributes waiting, with evidence and the strongest case against you stated in full.
Due: 30 April 2027 · Weight: 20%
The task#
Choose one queue. Identify the decision its design makes about whose time can be spent. Argue for or against that decision, using evidence.
This is the second of four pieces and it is worth 20 percent. It is an essay, not a report, so it is marked on the argument rather than on the measurement. You are welcome to use the queue you measured for The Measured Queue, and the feedback on that piece reaches you before this one is due.
You are not required to conclude that the queue is unjust. Triage, boarding groups and priority lanes are often defensible, and arguing that one of them is right, with evidence, earns as many marks as arguing that it is wrong. What you are required to do is identify the decision, show who it costs, and quantify the cost where a number is available.
Choosing a queue#
Any of these work:
- The queue you measured in week 1, using your own data as evidence.
- A queue with a published discipline, such as a triage scale, a boarding order or a priority scheme.
- A queue that is not visible as a line, from week 7: a waiting list, a phone queue, an inbox, an appointment system.
- A queue whose opening hours or access route decides who can use it.
Avoid queues you cannot find any documentation for. Half the marks here rest on evidence, and a queue nobody has written anything about leaves you with only your own observation to work from.
What to do#
- State a thesis. One sentence, in the first 150 words, that somebody could disagree with.
- Describe the queue and its discipline in enough detail that a reader who has never seen it can follow the rest.
- Establish who waits longer under that discipline. At least one claim here has to carry a number, whether from your own measurements, from a published service standard or from a report.
- State the strongest counter-argument. Write it as its defenders would write it, using their reasons and their evidence. If the queue is run by people with a case, that case goes on the page in its best form.
- Answer it. This is where the argument is won or lost.
- Conclude with what follows if you are right.
What to submit#
One PDF, through the assessment portal on this site, by 17:00 Friday of
week 8. Name it SLOP3068-A2-u1234567.pdf.
Between 1200 and 1800 words, excluding the reference list. There is no title page requirement and no abstract or executive summary. Put your student number and the word count at the top of the first page.
Structure#
The section headings are yours to choose, but the essay has to do these six things and a marker has to be able to find each one.
| Part | What it does | Indicative words |
|---|---|---|
| Thesis | States the position, in the first 150 words | 100 |
| The queue | Describes the site, the service and the discipline in operation | 250 |
| The distribution | Establishes who waits longer, with at least one quantified claim | 400 |
| The strongest case against | States the opposing argument in its own best form, with its own evidence | 350 |
| The answer | Responds to that case and defends the thesis | 400 |
| What follows | What should change, or what should be left alone, if the thesis holds | 150 |
Sources and referencing#
At least six sources. At least two of them have to be primary: an operating procedure, a published service standard, a timetable, a regulator’s submission, an inquiry report, a transcript, or your own observation data from The Measured Queue.
Author and date in the text, full reference list at the end. The list does not count towards the word limit. If you use your own measurements, cite them as your own and say which observation session they came from.
What each criterion means#
The weights are in the table below this brief.
Strength of the argument. A thesis that can be disagreed with, reasons that support it in order, and a conclusion that follows from what came before. A summary of the debate with no position of your own sits in the lower half of this criterion.
Use of evidence. Claims are sourced, the quantified claim is real and its origin is stated, and the evidence bears the weight the argument puts on it. Quoting a figure without saying where it came from loses marks here even when the figure is correct.
Fair treatment of the strongest case against you. The test is whether somebody who holds the opposing view would recognise their own position in your description of it. A weak version built to be knocked down scores close to zero on 30 percent of this piece, which is the most common way this essay goes wrong.
Integrity and lateness#
See the policies page for academic integrity, the use of language models and the standard late penalty. If you need longer, ask for an extension before the deadline.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- 1200 to 1800 words, excluding the reference list
- about one queue, which may be the one you measured in week 1 or one from weeks 5 to 7
- a thesis stated in the first 150 words
- at least one quantified claim about who waits longer, with its source
- at least six sources, of which at least two are operating documents, published service standards or inquiry reports
- the strongest counter-argument stated in its own best form before you answer it
- submitted as a single PDF
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Strength of the argument | 40% |
| Use of evidence, including your own measurements | 30% |
| Fair treatment of the strongest case against you | 30% |