Duplicate-Disregard

Criteria

Exemplary - 100%

Satisfactory - 80-99%

Partially Met - 40-79%

Attempted - 1-39%

Not Evident - 0%

Suggestion for the improvement of the financial situation of both organizations

See “Satisfactory,” but in detail, calculations, and use of sources and concepts for support, the student exceeds expectations and makes no errors.

Student makes one suggestion, for each of the organizations, for how the organizations’ financial situations can be improved, and supports the suggestion with a logical forecast of how each organizations’ financial situations would change as a result.  

Student makes suggestions for improving the financial health of both organizations, but they, or the forecasts for how the financial situations at each organization would improve, are incomplete, lacking in detail or in support.

Suggestions missing major element(s) or the student only makes a suggestion for one of the organizations.

No suggestion for improving the financial situation of either organization.

Descriptions of Organizations

See “Satisfactory,” but in detail, calculations, and use of sources and concepts for support, the student exceeds expectations and makes no errors.

Student cites organizational details - including the organizations’ missions, visions and values, the results of the application of the heuristic developed in Week 1, news about the organizations, etc. - to make distinction between the organizations both easy and useful for the audience. Relevant details are conveyed. All details are supported by sources supplied and cited by the student.

Student attempts to communicate distinctions between the organizations to audience, but doesn’t integrate details from the reports, the heuristic, the snapshots, etc., to the extent that the audience has a clear or complete picture of the organizations. Some relevant details are left out. Some details go unsupported, or uncited.

Descriptions lacking in detail or details go largely unsupported by sources, or sources uncited.  

No attempt to describe organizations.

Financial Statuses of Organizations

See “Satisfactory,” but in detail, calculations, and use of sources and concepts for support, the student exceeds expectations and makes no errors.

Financial status of organizations clearly communicated and supported by details from the orgs’ financial documents as well as application of concepts from the course.

There can be one or two minor errors in calculation or application of concepts.

Some essential misapplications of concepts, or miscalculations, or use of details unsupported by the financial documents of target organizations, detract from the validity of what the student is trying to communicate.

Financial statuses of organizations remain largely unclear after presentation is over. Or, the financial status of the organizations is widely misrepresented.

No attempt to portray the financial status of the organizations.

Supplemental documents

See “Satisfactory,” but the student has addressed all of the issues pointed out to him or her when these documents were initially submitted to the instructor.  

(100) Student submits heuristic, organizational snapshots, financial and creditworthiness reports along with video of presentation. Where advised to by instructor when initially submitted, student has attempted to revise the documents to improve them.

The heuristic is filled out for both organizations (in any cells where a heuristic criterion cannot or should not be applied, the student has supplied a clear, logical reason for why).

Student submits all of the required supplemental materials, but many of the issues that the instructor pointed out when the documents were first submitted remain.

The heuristic is only partially filled out.

Some of the supplemental documents are missing.

The heuristic isn’t filled out.

No supplemental docs submitted.

Presentation Mechanics

See “Satisfactory,” but the student exceeds expectations in all categories and makes no errors.

The presentation is professional, logical, and appropriate for the target audience.

The presentation is lacking in detail or some of the slides are difficult to read/understand due to issues of layout or errors.

The presentation could be more professional, or the student seems to be presenting to a different audience.

No presentation.