The Case For, or Against, New Orleans

profilejojo
grading_rubric.pdf

 

 

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric

NOTE: If a component is absent, student receives a zero for that component.

Assignment Component

Unsatisfactory

< 77%

(C and below)

Emerging

78–82%

(C+ to B-)

Proficient

83–89%

(B to B+)

Exemplary

90–100%

(A- to A)

Score To calculate score:

(% / 100) x max points

e.g. (80% / 100) x 12 =

9.6 Analyze the economics of New Orleans in light of the given parameters and develop a Cost- Benefit Analysis (CBA) for rebuilding.

Course Objectives (CO) 3 & 4

Analysis of New Orleans economics is inaccurate or incomplete. It includes an estimated cash flow/CBA, but it is unreasonable. A few outcomes and possible scenarios are presented but many are not likely. Too few constituencies and interdependencies are represented.

CBA for rebuilding is unreasonable in regards to scope, resources, and/or objectives. CBA provides resources needed but how they will achieve objectives is unclear. Research

Analysis of New Orleans’ economics is somewhat accurate or somewhat incomplete. It includes an estimated cash flow/CBA but is somewhat unreasonable. A variety of outcomes and several possible scenarios are presented but some may not be likely. Most constituencies and their interdependencies are represented.

CBA for rebuilding is somewhat unreasonable in regards to scope, resources, or objectives. CBA provides resources needed to achieve objectives but is not specific in detail.

Analysis of New Orleans’ economics is accurate and complete. It includes a reasonably estimated cash flow/CBA with a variety of likely outcomes and several possible scenarios. All constituencies and their interdependencies are represented.

CBA for rebuilding is reasonable in regards to scope, resources, and objectives. CBA provides specific details and resources needed to achieve objectives. Research and evidence from the case study are used to support ideas.

Analysis of New Orleans’ economics is insightful and thorough. It includes a soundly estimated cash flow/CBA with a variety of likely outcomes and several possible scenarios. All constituencies and their interdependencies are represented.

CBA for rebuilding is thoughtful in regards to scope, resources, and objectives. CBA provides specific, astute details and resources needed to achieve objectives. Research and

/ 40

Page 1 of 5 Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric 2

Page 2 of 5 Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

and evidence from the

case study are present but are either inappropriate or too sporadic.

Research and evidence from the case study are presented but how they support the ideas must be inferred.

evidence from the case study are used to support ideas.

Evaluate the value of that CBA for each constituency and integrate these estimates into a scenario model and/or decision tree. Analyze the results.

CO 1, 4, & 5

Evaluation presents benefits of the CBA for the constituency, but is either inaccurate or too vague. Some constituencies are described but some are missing. Most are appropriate to the situation.

Scenario model and/or decision tree is unclear or does not appropriately integrate the estimates. Integration of constituencies is addressed but is inaccurate. Examples of how decisions are conditional upon each other are present but are inaccurate.

Evaluation presents benefits of the CBA for each constituency but is not specific. Generally, each constituency is described and appropriate to the situation, but either a few constituencies are missing or they are under-explained.

Scenario model and/or decision tree is somewhat clear or does not completely integrate the estimates appropriately. Integration of constituencies is addressed but left a bit vague. Examples of how the decisions are conditional upon each other are present, but some conditions must be inferred.

Evaluation presents specific benefits of the CBA for each constituency, and each constituency is clearly described and appropriate to the situation.

Scenario model and/or decision tree clearly and appropriately integrates the estimates. Integration of constituencies is clearly addressed and specific examples of how the decisions are conditional upon each other are present.

Analysis of the results is specific and provides a scenario model and explains interrelation of constituencies’ decisions.

Evaluation presents specific, acute benefits of the CBA for each constituency, and each constituency is completely described and insightfully apt to the situation.

Scenario model and/or decision tree completely, concisely, and insightfully integrates the estimates. Integration of constituencies is acutely addressed and specific examples of how the decisions are conditional upon each other are thoughtfully presented.

Analysis of the results is specific and provides a scenario model and

/ 76

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric 3

Page 3 of 5 Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

explains interrelation

of constituencies’ decision in detail.

Discuss the decision pitfalls to which the constituencies may be susceptible and make a recommendation on how to alleviate those pressures.

CO 2 & 5

Decision problems to which the constituencies may be susceptible are unclear or inappropriate to the situation. Recommendations are unreasonable. Any theory or research reference is unclear in regards to its support.

Decision problems to which the constituencies may be susceptible are not clearly identified or they are somewhat inappropriate to the situation. Recommendations are somewhat reasonable and reference theory or research (but support must be inferred).

Decision problems to which the constituencies may be susceptible are clearly identified and appropriate to the situation. Recommendations are reasonable and grounded in theory or research.

Decision problems to which the constituencies may be susceptible are astutely identified and appropriate to the situation. Recommendations are thoughtful and grounded in theory or research.

/ 40

Starting with the CBA, estimate the relevant expected utility for these parties.

CO 4

Estimation of the relevant expected utility for these parties is unreasonable or not proportional to one another. Evidence are sporadic or does not support ideas. Estimation does not reflect the CBA proposed.

Estimation of the relevant expected utility for these parties is somewhat reasonable and somewhat proportional to one another. Evidence is provided, but how it supports the ideas is unclear. Estimation references the CBA proposal, but reflection is unclear.

Estimation of the relevant expected utility for these parties is reasonable, proportional to one another, and grounded in evidence. Estimation reflects the CBA proposed.

Estimation of the relevant expected utility for these parties is thoughtful, proportional to one another, and grounded in insightful evidence. Estimation clearly reflects and relates to the CBA proposed.

/ 40

Make a case for or against rebuilding the city of New Orleans. This should be an executive summary—be concise and brief. Include exhibits.

Executive summary waffles between whether or not to rebuild New Orleans. Evidence and research is sporadic or does not support the ideas. Stance occasionally is biased or

Executive summary takes a stance on whether to rebuild New Orleans or not, but stance is unclear. Evidence and research are provided, but how they support the ideas is unclear. Stance is generally reasonable

Executive summary clearly takes a stance on whether to rebuild New Orleans or not. Specific evidence and research are provided to support ideas. Stance is reasonable and unbiased.

Executive summary insightfully takes a stance on whether to rebuild New Orleans or not. Specific, astute evidence and research are provided to support ideas. Stance is

/ 76

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric 4

Page 4 of 5 Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

CO 1, 2, & 5 unreasonable. and unbiased. reasonable and unbiased.

Discuss how social heuristics could be used to an advantage, both ethically and unethically, in making a case.

CO 2

Discussion of how social heuristics can be used to gain advantage is unclear or inaccurate. Evidence and research are sporadic or does not support the ideas. Ethical and unethical advantages are incomplete or inaccurately identified.

Discussion of how social heuristics can be used to gain advantage is somewhat unclear or somewhat inaccurate. Evidence and research is provided, but how they support the ideas is unclear. Ethical and unethical advantages are identified but are incomplete or unclear.

Discussion of how social heuristics can be used to gain advantage is clear, accurate, and provides specific examples to support its ideas. Ethical and unethical advantages are identified and discussed.

Discussion of how social heuristics can be used to gain advantage is thoughtful, complete, and provides specific examples to support its ideas. Ethical and unethical advantages are precisely identified and insightfully discussed.

/ 40

Estimate what percentage of the class was for, versus against, rebuilding and provide a confidence interval for the estimate.

CO 2

Estimation is inaccurate or unsupported. Confidence interval is underdeveloped or inaccurate.

Estimation is somewhat inaccurate or not clearly grounded in evidence from the case study. Confidence interval is somewhat vague or inaccurate.

Estimation is accurate and grounded in evidence from the case study. Confidence interval is detailed and accurate.

Estimation is insightful and grounded in evidence from the case study. Confidence interval is precise, detailed clear, and accurate.

/ 12

Ensure academic writing, such as grammar, spelling, and attribution of sources, is appropriate.

Writing is unclear and disorganized and rereading to solidify understanding is frequently necessary. Although an attempt at ethical scholarship is attempted, it is sloppy or incomplete throughout. Spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors severely interfere with readers’

Writing is somewhat clear and is somewhat organized, although rereading to solidify understanding is occasionally necessary. It demonstrates an attempt at ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources, but errors are occasional or minor. Writing has good

Writing is generally clear and in an organized manner. It demonstrates ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; and generally displays accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Errors are few, isolated, and do not interfere with reader’s comprehension.

Writing is clear, concise, and in an organized manner; demonstrates ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; and displays accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

/36

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric 5

Page 5 of 5 Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

comprehension. spelling, grammar, and

punctuation, but errors somewhat interfere with readers’ comprehension.

Total /360 points