AYN 426 INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKET LAW AND REGULATION

Criteria

Performance Standards

Mark

Less than Satisfactory

0 4

Satisfactory – Average

5 6

Above average-substantially competent

6.5 8

Highly Competent– Excellent

8.5 10

TOTALS

A. Knowledge and Understanding

· Breadth of research

· Relevance of material

· Quality of academic content

Very little relevant or accurate material; contains numerous errors or omissions of fact or law, and possibly irrelevancies; displays no real understanding of general principles.

Displays basic knowledge and comprehension of the topic; some general reading; and a sound (though not above-average) grasp of basic principles. Omits key points, and may be inaccurate in important respects.

Identifies key features of the topic. Generally accurate, well informed, reasonably comprehensive. Draws on the work of various commentators, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Work displays a mastery and critical appreciation of the topic, the law, and controversies in the literature. Contributes to knowledge in the discipline. Work is, with minor editing, of a publishable standard.

Q1

/15

Q2

/7.5

Q3

/7.5

B. Analysis and Judgment

· Application to practice

· Independent critical thinking

· Original contribution

Application of law is neither accurate, nor comprehensive. Paper is a poor representation of material in the text or lectures, with no evidence of independent thought. Little evidence of effective research, editing or redrafting.

Accurate application of relevant law, but not particularly insightful for practice. Little or no reference to controversies in the literature; no originality in development of arguments, which are only relatively basic.

Applies relevant law reasonably accurately and comprehensively. Somewhat evaluative, as opposed to descriptive. Some lessons for practice, but little or no originality or independent thought.

Clear exposition and detailed application of complex ideas, with a sense of perspective. Critically synthesises and evaluates different interpretations and purported solutions to a problem, and has important lessons for practice; highly original contribution.

Q1

/20

Q2

/10

Q3

/10

C. Communication

· Structure of argument

· Logic of argument

· Scholarship and Referencing

· Written Competence

· Professional Presentation

Argument has no real structure or is very loosely structured; is poorly reasoned or unsustainable in logic; little or no evidence of effective research; incomplete referencing; many grammar, syntax, spelling errors. Conclusions fail to answer question.

Structure could be substantially improved by re-drafts. Contains assertions that are not supported by good evidence or reasoning; contains non sequiturs; minimum grammar, syntax, or spelling errors; generally omits to reference a significant work in area. Conclusions barely follow reasoning.

Reasonably well structured, but could be significantly improved with editing. Contains strong reasoning, and/or argument, but lacks good logic conclusion or sound theoretical foundation.

Few grammar, syntax, or spelling errors; referencing is generally adequate, but 1-2 references may be omitted.

Structure permits ready understanding of argument and the conclusions flowing from it. Logic is tight, lucid and self-contained. Premises and arguments clearly support research findings. Grammatically and syntactically very well presented; no (or very minor) spelling errors; all sources and prior research are referenced appropriately. Conclusions follows premises well.

Q1

/15

Q2

/7.5

Q3

/7.5

Q1

/50

Q2

/25

Q3

/25

Comments:

TOTALS

/50

/100