The Financial meltdown of 2008 was one of the greatest financial catastrophes that occurred in the 21st century.

Dimension

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Poor

Introduction

(10 marks)

The
introduction and objectives are clearly stated. Background and context are
clearly articulated and linked to objectives effectively.

(10-8 marks)

The
introduction and objectives are clear. Background and context are partially
described and mostly linked to objectives.

(7-6 marks)

The
introduction and objectives are clear, but the background and context are not
well described nor clearly linked to objectives.

(5 marks)

The
introduction is vague. Background and context are vague or absolutely lacking
and there are no clear links to objectives.

(0-4 marks)

Analysis

(30 marks)

Analysis
is highly relevant to the assignment requirements and presented clearly and
logically. Strong link is made between theory and practice.

(30
-26 marks)

Analysis
is relevant to the assignment requirements but is not always presented
clearly and / or logically. Strong link made between theory and practice.

(25-
20 marks)

Analysis
is reasonably relevant to the assignment requirements.

At
times, the analysis is not clearly or logically presented. A fair link made
between theory and practice.

(19-15
marks)

Analysis
is not relevant to the assignment requirements.

Analysis
is vague and illogical. The link between theory and practice is unclear and
illogical or has major errors.

(14 -0 marks)

Case laws

(40 marks)

The
Case law presented, and facts is highly relevant to the assignment.

(40
-33 marks)

The
Case laws presented, and facts is relevant to the assignment.

(32-25
marks)

The
Case laws presented, and facts is somewhat relevant to the assignment.

(24
-20 marks)

The
Case laws presented, and facts is not relevant to the assignment.

(19
– 0 marks)`

Conclusion

(10 marks)

Conclusion
is clearly stated and connections to the arguments and positions are clear
and relevant. The underlying logic is explicit.

(10-8 marks)

Conclusion
is clearly stated but connections to arguments and positions are not always
clear and relevant – some aspects may not be connected or minor errors in the
underlying logic are present.

(7-6 marks)

Conclusion
is fairly well stated and connections to arguments and positions are somewhat
unclear / irrelevant.

(5 marks).

Conclusion
is very poorly stated and the connections to the arguments and positions are
incorrect, unclear, irrelevant, or presented without explanation. Underlying
logic has major errors.

(4-0 marks)

Writing

(5 marks) 

The
Project is coherently organized and easy to follow. There are no spelling or
grammatical errors and technical terms are clearly defined.

(5 marks)

The
Project is generally well organized and mostly easy to follow. There are only
a few minor spellings and/or grammatical errors, and technical terms are not
clearly defined.

(4 marks)

The
Project is fairly well organized and somewhat easy to follow. There are a few
minor spellings and / or grammatical errors and technical terms are not
defined.

(3 mark)

The
Project is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically
from one part to another. It is not easy to follow. There are several
spellings and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are not defined or are
poorly defined.

(0-2 marks)

Referencing

(5 marks)

Four
or more references were used/ cited.

References
were:

Appropriate
for the context of the Project.

Were
very current where applicable using references produced during the last 5
years.

Used
effectively in the Project.

Written
using the latest APA style format.

(5 marks)

Three
references were used/ cited.

References
were:

Generally
appropriate for the context of the Project.

Were
not always current, using references produced during the last 6 years.

Used
most effectively in the Project.

Written
using the latest APA style format for the most part.

(4 marks)

Two
references were used/ cited.

References
were:

1.      
Reasonably
appropriate for the context of the Project

2.      
Were for the
most part, outdated, using references produced during the last 7 years.

3.      
Used somewhat
effectively in the Project.

4.      
Written using
the latest APA style format was inconsistent throughout

(3 marks)

Only
one reference or no references were used/ cited.

References,
if used were:

1.   
Not appropriate
for the context of Project.

2.   
Were for the
most part, outdated, using references produced during the last 8 years or
more.

3.   
Ineffectively
used in the Project.

4.   
Not written
using the Latest APA style.

(0-2 marks)