ECON 1401 Semester 1, 2018

Successfully adopting a particular conceptual frame requires a good understanding of the dimensions, limits, strengths

and weaknesses of that frame. This means that preparing your written assignments will also help you to develop in-

depth knowledge of particular perspectives explored in this course, and to hone your skills in critical analysis.

The first step is to select one of the thinkers we have studied so far in the course, who will serve as your focal thinker.

The list of thinkers is provided below. To select your focal thinker, visit the Moodle site and sign yourself up using the

“Select a Thinker – Written Assignment 1” link under Course Assessments and General Resources. Only 17 students

will be allowed to adopt each person as their focal thinker.

You should write approximately 2000 words, of which about one-third should explain in broad strokes the perspective of

your focal thinker, and two-thirds should present your analysis of how that thinker would have Trump’s proposed tariffs.

What are the core quantities, processes, and causal dependencies relevant to this phenomenon that he would have

highlighted? What alternative policy responses might he have offered, and why? If you feel that your focal thinker

would not have concerned himself with this phenomenon or would not have considered it important, thoroughly explain

why.

Structure your assignment so in that in your first paragraph you outline the broad purpose and ideas of the essay, and in your last paragraph you sum up the arguments made in the middle of the paper. Ensure you use complete sentences and well-organised paragraphs. Stick to the word count limit. You will be penalised if you provide no word count at the

Criteria and Weightings

Below Expectations <50% (Fail)

Meets Expectations 50% - 74% (Pass-Credit)

Exceeds Expectations
≥75% (Distinction-High Distinction)

1. Clear and accurate

communication of ideas and information (20%)

Poor command of written expression in English , e.g.:

• Main ideas and arguments not clear

• Expression/grammar frequently inaccurate

• Terminology not used

  appropriately or correctly

• Main ideas and arguments generally clear, although some details may not be developed clearly

• Expression/grammar may contain some errors which occasionally impede clarity

• Generally appropriate and accurate use of terminology

• Ideas and arguments presently clearly throughout

• Accurate use of language and grammar (or with negligible errors which do not diminish reader’s understanding)

• Accurate and appropriate use of terminology

2. Logical and coherent

structure (20%)

Does not present material logically , e.g.:

• Not a clear focus; ideas are difficult to follow; may include irrelevant material or go off track

• Not structured clearly to convey key messages to the reader; e.g. inadequate introduction and/or conclusion; subsections that do not progress the arguments.

• Too long or too short

Presents key material logically and coherently, e.g.:

• Has a mainly clear focus, with little/no irrelevant material; reader can follow development of main arguments

• Structured adequately to reinforce key points, e.g., informative introduction and/or conclusion; sections are linked and progress the arguments.

• Proper length

Presents material logically and persuasively in a well-structured essay, e.g.:

• A clear focus, with no irrelevant or repetitive material; a logical sequence so that the reader can follow ideas

• Structured to reinforce key ideas & distinguish from supporting details, e.g. introduction clearly defines aim; sections are well-developed & clearly linked.

• Proper length

3. Depth of engagement

(25%)

Does not display adequate engagement with material, e.g.:

• Little reference to relevant texts/author/ideas and/or policy issue

• Superficial regurgitation of phrases and terminology, with little evidence of understanding

Reasonable level of engagement, e.g.:

• Clear references to relevant course material (texts/author/ideas) and to policy issue

• Competent level of understanding of both abstract concepts and concrete policy issue, although some details may remain fuzzy

• Some engagement with genesis of ideas and policy issue

High level of engagement, e.g.:

• Excellent grasp of the nuances of both relevant course material (texts/author/ideas) and concrete policy issue

• Demonstrated interest in and superior engagement with the complex genesis of ideas and policy issue

4. Successful application and

critical analysis of ideas (30%)

Inadequate application or critical analysis, e.g.:

• Lack of critical comments about material

• No evidence of application of texts/author/ideas to policy issue

• Presentation of texts/author/ideas and policy issue as mainly unrelated entities

Some evidence of application and critical analysis, e.g.:

• Appropriate, logically sound application of texts/author/ideas to policy issue

• Some critical comments and intellectual questioning of texts/author/ideas

Evidence of strong abilities in application and critical analysis, e.g.:

• Rich, novel, and engaging application of texts/author/ideas to policy issue

• Engaging, logically coherent critical

  analysis of texts/author/ideas

• Attempt to offer a novel solution to

  policy issue grounded in

  texts/author/ideas

• Demonstrated ability to foresee and

  explain consequences and limitations of the solution recommendations made

5. Reflection on performance

(5%)

Either no marks or full marks; no partial credit.

Full marks are awarded only if both (a) your performance on each criterion is self-assessed in Review, and (b) the scores you estimate you will achieve on each criterion are reasonably justified by two to three sentences of thoughtful reflection on your performance. Do not include your self-assessment scores or text in the body of your work. Instead, use Review’s slider scales to record your self-assessment scores on each criterion, and type or paste your reflection text directly into the “Student Comment” box in Review. See the “Using Review” guide, available on Moodle, for more guidance.

Note that markers will not see your self-assessment scores or text before they mark your assignment.