NPX

Unsatisfactory

Emerging

Proficient

Exemplary

Assignment Components (80% of LASA grade)

Calculated and explained the correct NPV for the most likely results. (CO2)

NPV calculation for the most likely results was inaccurate; contained multiple errors and the explanation demonstrated a lack of understanding of the NPV model.

NPV calculation for the most likely results contained some errors and the explanation demonstrated a limited understanding of the NPV model.

NPV calculation for the most likely results was accurate; contained no critical errors and demonstrated a complete understanding of the NPV model.

NPV calculation for the most likely results was accurate, contained no errors and demonstrated an exemplary understanding of the NPV model.

Calculated and explained the correct NPV for the best-case scenario. (CO2 & 3)

Calculation for the correct NPV for the best-case scenario was inaccurate; contained multiple errors and the explanation demonstrated a lack of understanding of the NPV model.

Calculation for the correct NPV for the best-case scenario contained some errors and the explanation demonstrated a limited understanding of the NPV model.

Calculation for the correct NPV for the best-case scenario contained only minor errors and the explanation demonstrated a complete understanding of the NPV model.

Calculation for the correct NPV for the best-case scenario was accurate, contained no errors and the explanation demonstrated an exemplary understanding of the NPV model.

Calculated and explained the correct NPV for the worst-case scenario. (CO2 & 3)

Calculation for the correct NPV for the worst-case scenario was inaccurate; contained multiple errors and the explanation demonstrated a lack of understanding of the NPV model.

Calculation for the correct NPV for the worst-case scenario contained some errors and the explanation demonstrated a limited understanding of the NPV model.

Calculation for the correct NPV for the worst-case scenario contained only minor errors and the explanation demonstrated a complete understanding of the NPV model.

Calculation for the correct NPV for the worst-case scenario was accurate, contained no errors and the explanation demonstrated an exemplary understanding of the NPV model.

Calculated and explained the correct IRR for the most likely results. (CO2)

Calculation for the correct IRR for the most likely results was inaccurate; contained multiple errors and the explanation demonstrated a lack of understanding of the IRR model.

Calculation for the correct IRR for the most likely results contained some errors and the explanation demonstrated a limited understanding of the IRR model.

Calculation for the correct IRR for the most likely results contained only minor errors and the explanation demonstrated a complete understanding of the IRR model.

Calculation for the correct IRR for the most likely results was accurate, contained no errors and the explanation demonstrated an exemplary understanding of the IRR model.

Recommended acceptance or rejection of the project and explained the reasons for that recommendation. (CO2)

Recommendation and explanation of acceptance or rejection of the project was unclear, confusing, or incorrect, overlooking critical details and omitting important facts and concepts.

Recommendation and explanation of acceptance or rejection of the project was given with limited details, identifying few connections to important details, facts and concepts, and showing a limited sense of understanding of the characteristics.

Recommendation and explanation of acceptance or rejection of the project was given by a thorough presentation of important details, facts, and concepts and demonstrates a complete understanding of the characteristics.

Recommendation and explanation of acceptance or rejection of the project was given by a comprehensive analysis of the information, relating the concepts using a variety of factors, and showing an impressive level of depth of understanding of the characteristics.

Explained how adjusting the discount rate in the basic NPV model of capital budgeting deals with the problem of project risk. (CO3)

Explanation of how adjusting the discount rate in the basic NPV model of capital budgeting deals with the problem of project risk was unclear, confusing, or incorrect, overlooking critical details and omitting important details, facts and concepts.

Explanation of how adjusting the discount rate in the basic NPV model of capital budgeting deals with the problem of project risk was given with limited details, identifying few connections to important details, facts and concepts, and showing a limited sense of understanding of the characteristics.

Explanation of how adjusting the discount rate in the basic NPV model of capital budgeting deals with the problem of project risk was given by a thorough presentation of important details, facts, and concepts and demonstrates a complete understanding of the characteristics.

Explanation of how adjusting the discount rate in the basic NPV model of capital budgeting deals with the problem of project risk was given by a comprehensive analysis of the information, relating the concepts using a variety of factors, and showing an impressive level of depth of understanding of the characteristics.

Explained the potential motivation for unethical behavior by executives that may take place in the capital budgeting process and how biasing cash-flow estimates can work to the advantage of the executive who intentionally inserts such bias.

(CO5)

Explanation of the potential motivation for unethical behavior by executives that may take place in the capital budgeting process and how biasing cash-flow estimates can work to the advantage of the executive who intentionally inserts such bias

was unclear, confusing, or incorrect, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the accounting concepts.

Explanation of the potential motivation for unethical behavior by executives that may take place in the capital budgeting process and how biasing cash-flow estimates can work to the advantage of the executive who intentionally inserts such bias

was vague and not detailed enough to follow, demonstrating a limited understanding of the accounting concepts.

Explanation of the potential motivation for unethical behavior by executives that may take place in the capital budgeting process and how biasing cash-flow estimates can work to the advantage of the executive who intentionally inserts such bias

was clear and precise, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the material.

Explanation of the potential motivation for unethical behavior by executives that may take place in the capital budgeting process and how biasing cash-flow estimates can work to the advantage of the executive who intentionally inserts such bias

was extremely articulate and detailed, demonstrating an in-depth understanding of the material.

Writing Components (20 % of LASA grade)

Organization

Introduction

Thesis

Transitions

Conclusion

Introduction is limited or missing entirely.

The paper lacks a thesis statement.

Transitions are infrequent, illogical, or missing entirely.

Conclusion is limited or missing entirely.

Introduction is present but incomplete or underdeveloped.

The paper is loosely organized around a thesis that may have to be inferred.

Transitions are sporadic.

Conclusion is present, but incomplete or underdeveloped.

Introduction has a clear opening, provides background information, and states the topic.

The paper is organized around an arguable, clearly stated thesis statement.

Transitions are appropriate and help the flow of ideas.

Conclusion summarizes main argument and has a clear ending.

Introduction catches the reader’s attention, provides compelling and appropriate background info, and clearly states the topic.

The paper is well organized around an arguable, focused thesis.

Thoughtful transitions clearly show how ideas relate.

Conclusion leaves the reader with a sense of closure and provides concluding insights.

Usage and Mechanics

Grammar

Spelling

Sentence structure

Writing contains numerous errors in spelling, grammar, and/or sentence structure that severely interfere with readability and comprehension.

Errors in spelling and grammar exist that somewhat interfere with readability and/or comprehension.

Writing follows conventions of spelling and grammar throughout. Errors are infrequent and do not interfere with readability or comprehension.

The paper is basically error free in terms of mechanics. Grammar and mechanics help establish a clear idea and aid the reader in following the writer’s logic.

APA Elements

Attribution

Paraphrasing

Quotations

No attempt at APA format.

APA format is attempted to paraphrase, quote, and cite, but errors are significant.

Using APA format, accurately paraphrased, quoted, and cited in many spots throughout when appropriate or called for. Errors present are somewhat minor.

Using APA format, accurately paraphrased, quoted, and cited throughout the presentation when appropriate or called for. Only a few minor errors present.

Style

Audience

Word Choice

Writing often slips into first and/or second person.

Word choice is consistently inaccurate, unclear, or inappropriate for the audience.

Writing sometimes slips into first and/or second person.

Word choice is sometimes inaccurate, unclear, or inappropriate for the audience.

Writing remains in third person throughout writing.

Word choice is accurate, clear and appropriate for the audience.

Writing remains professional in third person throughout writing.

Word choice is precise, appropriate for the audience, and memorable.