Order ID | 53563633773 |
Type | Essay |
Writer Level | Masters |
Style | APA |
Sources/References | 4 |
Perfect Number of Pages to Order | 5-10 Pages |
Primary and Secondary Markets in The Financial World
PLEASE READ NEED FOR WEEK 2
Why Article Reviews?
In this Introduction to Banking course you will review a new article every two weeks; your first article review will be due during Week 02. In Week 11 you will compile a list of all five articles you’ve reviewed with brief descriptions and personal feedback for each.
The article reviews are designed to give you an opportunity to research and learn about current events that affect the specific financial issues discussed during the two weeks you are writing the review. The purpose is to demonstrate how information covered in this course applies to the current financial world.
The first article you review should touch on the aspects of banking covered in Weeks 1 and 2:
Primary and Secondary Markets in the Financial World/Domestic and Global Finances
Determinants of Interest Rates and Time Value of Money
Suggested Article Sources
You may choose any article that fits the subject areas of Weeks 1 and 2.
For article sources, try http://www.ijcb.org, www.thebanker.com, and The Wall Street Journal at www.wsj.com.
You may also look for articles at your online college library, which is accessible through the Resources Tab.
Content Requirements
To review the content requirements for this assignment, click on the link below; you may print out the requirements document for continued reference throughout the 11 weeks of the course:
Format Requirements:
Cover page. (see link below)
One page long. (no more, no less)
Single spaced. (Double spaced between sections)
Font size: 12 point.
Font type: Tahoma
Margins: one inch all around.
Cover Page
To see a sample cover page, click on the link below:
What About Your Score?
Your article reviews will be scored on a scale of 1-20, with 20 as the highest score (10 maximum for presentation and 10 maximum for content). You will also receive an additional 10 points for turning the article reviews in on time-for a total of 30 available points. For a summary of how your instructor will evaluate and score your reviews, click on the link below.
Total Possible Score: 8.00
Total: 1.60
Distinguished – Performs the following: 1.Correctly identifies all variable data levels and 2. Provides correct reasoning for placing variables in the nominal, ordinal, or interval, categories.
Proficient – Performs the following but misidentifies no more than three data types and/or the reasons: 1. Identifies all variable data levels and 2. Provides reasoning for placing variables in the nominal, ordinal, or interval categories.
Basic – Performs the following but misidentifies no more than eight of the data types and/or the reasons: 1. Identifies variable data levels and 2. Provides reasoning for placing variables in the nominal, ordinal, or interval, categories.
Below Expectations – Performs the following but misidentifies nine or more of the data types and/or the reasons: 1. Identifies variable data levels and 2. Provides reasoning for placing variables in the nominal, ordinal, or interval, categories.
Non-Performance – There is either no response to problem one, or it fails to provide any correct identification and/or reasoning.
Total: 1.60
Distinguished – Performs all of the following correctly: 1.The data necessary for computations was selected accurately. 2. Accurate results produced. 3. The results are presented in a clear format. 4. Identified which variables this function does not work properly for. Correctly calculated and displayed asked for values for all three groups.
Proficient – One of the following was not done correctly: 1.The data necessary for computations was selected accurately. 2. Accurate results produced. 3. The results are presented in a clear format. 4. Identified which variables this function does not work properly for. Incorrectly calculated no more than three values.
Basic – Two of the following were not done correctly: 1.The data necessary for computations was selected accurately. 2. Accurate results produced. 3. The results are presented in a clear format. 4. Identified which variables this function does not work properly for. Incorrectly calculated no more than 14 total values.
Below Expectations – Three of the following were not done correctly: 1.The data necessary for computations was selected accurately. 2. Accurate results produced. 3. The results are presented in a clear format. 4. Identified which variables this function does not work properly for. Incorrectly calculated more than 15 values.
Non-Performance – There is either no response to problem two, or it does not provide correct statistical outcomes as asked for.
Total: 1.60
Distinguished – Performed all the following correctly: 1.The data necessary for computations was selected accurately. 2. Data counts were correct. 3. Produced accurate results. 4. Difference in values explained clearly.
Proficient – One of the following was not done correctly: 1.The data necessary for computations was selected accurately. 2. Data counts were correct. 3. Produced accurate results. 4. Difference in values explained clearly.
Basic – Two of the following were not done correctly: 1.The data necessary for computations was selected accurately. 2. Data counts were correct. 3. Produced accurate results. 4. Difference in values explained clearly.
Below Expectations – Three of the following were not done correctly: 1.The data necessary for computations was selected accurately. 2. Data counts were correct. 3. Produced accurate results. 4. Difference in values explained clearly.
Non-Performance – There is either no response to problem three, or it does not provide probability values as asked for.
Total: 1.60
Distinguished – Performed all of the following correctly: 1.Correct raw score identified for each group. 2. Z score correctly calculated. 3. Related probability determined. 4. Interpretation presented.
Proficient – No more than four errors were noted in the following: 1. Raw score identified for each group. 2. Z score calculated. 3. Related probability determined. 4. Interpretation presented.
Basic – No more than eight errors were noted in the following: 1. Raw score identified for each group. 2. Z score calculated. 3. Related probability determined. 4. Interpretation presented.
Below Expectations – No more than 15 errors were noted in the following: 1. Raw score identified for each group. 2. Z score calculated. 3. Related probability determined. 4. Interpretation presented.
Non-Performance – There is either no response to problem four, or it fails to provide any information on z-scores, distributions and relative value of different measures asked for in the question.
Total: 1.60
Distinguished – Provides thorough and accurate conclusions about the following issues: 1. Male and female pay inequality. 2. Consistency between and among different statistical measures of equality.
Proficient – Provides complete and mostly accurate conclusions about the following issues: 1. Male and female pay inequality. 2. Consistency between and among different statistical measures of equality.
Basic – Provides incomplete and/or inaccurate conclusions about the following issues: 1. Male and female pay inequality. 2. Consistency between and among different statistical measures of equality.
Below Expectations – Provides incomplete and inaccurate conclusions about the following issues: 1. Male and female pay inequality. 2. Consistency between and among different statistical measures of equality.
Non-Performance – There is either no response to problem five, or it fails to provide any correct response to the results about males and females.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDERCLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernowAlso, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|