Weighting – 100% of the marks for this module
This is an individual assignment of 3000 words. (+ or – 10%)
The hand in date is: Friday 15th January 2016 23:59 GMT
Please submit a hard copy to the Jira online submission system ( HYPERLINK “https://webservices.sunderland.ac.uk” https://webservices.sunderland.ac.uk)
Requirements:
This assignment is in two parts with each part carrying a maximum mark of 50%.
Part A.
Critically analyse the purpose of monetary policy and the different methods employed by central banks to achieve monetary policy goals.
Part B
Evaluate the role financial intermediaries’ play in smoothing out the incompatibilities between savers and borrowers and promoting a well functioning financial system.
The University policy on cheating collusion and plagiarism will be applied to this piece of work.
Guidance:
Students should approach this assignment as an academic essay, weighing the arguments for and against each issue, making comment on the literature and drawing logical conclusions. Harvard referencing is a key requirement of the assignment to demonstrate wider reading and to underpin the discussions, ensuring they have sufficient depth.
Generic Assessment Criteria – Undergraduate Bachelor’s degree
These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working
Categories Grade Relevance Knowledge Analysis Argument and Structure Critical Evaluation Presentation Reference to Literature Pass 86 – 100% The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also unequivocal evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse. 76-85% The work examined is excellent and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse and there may be some evidence of originality
70 – 75% The work examined is of a high standard and there is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also clearly articulated t evidence demonstrating that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected that the standard of the work will be high in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
60 – 69% Directly relevant to the requirements of the assessment A substantial knowledge of relevant material, showing a clear grasp of themes, questions and issues therein Good analysis, clear and orderly Generally coherent and logically structured, using an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical mode(s) May contain some distinctive or independent thinking; may begin to formulate an independent position in relation to theory and/or practice. Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable format Critical appraisal of up-to-date and/or appropriate literature. Recognition of different perspectives. Very good use of source material. Uses a range of sources
50 – 59% Some attempt to address the requirements of the assessment: may drift away from this in less focused passages Adequate knowledge of a fair range of relevant material, with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance Some analytical treatment, but may be prone to description, or to narrative, which lacks clear analytical purpose Some attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency, with issues at stake stated only vaguely, or theoretical mode(s) couched in simplistic terms Sound work which expresses a coherent position only in broad terms and in uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of the topic Competently written, with only minor lapses from standard grammar, with acceptable format Uses a variety of literature which includes some recent texts and/or appropriate literature, though not necessarily including a substantive amount beyond library texts. Competent use of source material. 40 – 49% Some correlation with the requirements of the assessment but there are instances of irrelevance Basic understanding of the subject but addressing a limited range of material Largely descriptive or narrative, with little evidence of analysis A basic argument is evident, but mainly supported by assertion and there may be a lack of clarity and coherence Some evidence of a view starting to be formed but mainly derivative. A simple basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or format that may pose obstacles for the reader Some up-to-date and/or appropriate literature used. Goes beyond the material tutor has provided. Limited use of sources to support a point. Fail 35 – 39% Relevance to the requirements of the assessment may be very intermittent, and may be reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms A limited understanding of a narrow range of material Heavy dependence on description, and/or on paraphrase, is common Little evidence of coherent argument: lacks development and may be repetitive or thin Almost wholly derivative: the writer’s contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase Numerous deficiencies in expression and presentation; the writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using a simplistic or repetitious style Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on
material provided by the tutor. The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied – for compensation consideration. 30 – 34%
The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence provided shows that some of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators. 15-29% The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence shows that few of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators. 0-14% The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence fails to show that any of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators.
