In what ways might employers have benefitted from the world economic crisis that began in 2008 Assignment | Online Assignment

An introduction to management accounting and finance essay, with the need for key theories within management that may help back points for the essay

.MN1025 Introduc0on to Management for Accoun0ng and Finance
Assignment
You answer should be 1700 words in total, +/- 10%:
1. In what ways might employers have benefiKed from the world economic crisis that began in 2008?
Advice and Guidance
(a) Remember, your essay should contain an argument – that is to say an opinion backed by fact. You should
ensure that you have both a strong line as to what you believe the answer to be as well as cita?ons to
evidence that proves your case.
Mark Undergraduate Grade Descriptor
85-100% Scholarship: Excellent applica?on of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject maJer;
percep?ve; demonstrates a cri?cal apprecia?on of subject and extensive and detailed cri?cal analysis
of the key issues; displays independence of thought and/ or a novel and relevant approach to the
subject; reveals both breadth and depth of understanding, showing insight and apprecia?on of
argument.
Independent learning: Work draws on a wide range of relevant literature and is not confined to
reading lists, textbooks or lecture notes; arguments are well supported by a variety of means.
Wri0ng skills: Wri?ng skills are excellent; wri?ng is clear and precise; arguments are logical, wellstructured
and sustained, and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are reasoned and
jus?fied by evidence.
Analysis: Work demonstrates a robust approach to analysis that is evident of a deep understanding of
relevant concepts, theories, principles and techniques. For quan?ta?ve modules analysis is complete
and en?rely relevant to the problem.
70-84% Scholarship: Very good applica?on of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject maJer;
demonstrates a cri?cal apprecia?on of subject; displays detailed thought and considera?on of the
subject; reveals very good breadth and depth of understanding.
Independent learning: Work draws on a range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading
lists, textbooks or lecture notes.
Wri0ng skills: Wri?ng skills are well-developed; wri?ng is clear and precise; arguments are logical,
well-structured and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are jus?fied by evidence.
Analysis: Analy?cal steps carried out carefully and correctly demonstra?ng that it is based on a sound
understanding. Analysis is relevant to the problem and is complete and is placed in a clear context.
60-69% Scholarship: Good, broad-based understanding of subject manner; makes effec?ve use of
understanding to provide an informa?ve, balanced argument that is focussed on the topic; reveals
some aJempt at crea?ve, independent thinking; main points well covered, displaying breadth or
depth but not necessarily both; broadly complete and relevant argument;
Independent learning: Sources range beyond textbooks and lecture material and are used effec?vely
to illustrate points and jus?fy arguments.
Wri0ng skills: Arguments are presented logically and coherently within a clear structure and are
jus?fied with appropriate suppor?ng evidence; capably wriJen with good use of English throughout;
free from major errors; complex ideas are expressed clearly and fluently using specialist technical
terminology where appropriate.
Analysis: Some minor slips in the steps of the analysis and some minor gaps in understanding of
underlying principles. Analysis is relevant to the problem and mostly complete. A good interpreta?on
which conveys most of its meaning.
50-59% Scholarship: Some but limited engagement with, and understanding of, relevant material but may lack
focus, organisa?on, breadth, and/or depth; rela?vely straigh[orward ideas are expressed clearly and
fluently though there may be liJle or no aJempt to synthesise or evaluate more complex ideas;
exhibits limited independent crea?ve thought; adequate analysis but some key points only men?oned
in passing; arguments sa?sfactory but some errors and perhaps lacking completeness and relevance in
parts.
Independent learning: Sources may range beyond lecture material and textbooks though effec?ve
engagement with and use of the wider literature is limited.
Wri0ng skills: The ques?on is addressed in a reasonably clear, coherent and structured manner but
some sec?ons may be poorly wriJen making the essay difficult to follow, obscuring key points or
leading to over-generalisa?on; competently wriJen with a good use of English throughout (few, if any,
errors of spelling, grammar and punctua?on). Answers that have upper second-class quali?es may fall
into this category if they are too short, unfinished or badly organised.
Analysis: Minor slips and occasional basic errors in analysis. Underlying principles are mostly
understood, but clear gaps are apparent. Analysis falls short of completeness and is a liJle irrelevant
in place but a reasonable interpreta?on which goes some way to convey its meaning
45-49% Scholarship: Minimum acceptable level of understanding; extremely basic and par?al understanding
of key issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately; uninspired and unoriginal;
relies on limited knowledge; analysis poor or obscure, superficial or inconsistent in places; arguments
incomplete, partly irrelevant or naive.
Independent learning: Sources restricted to core lecture material with no evidence of wider reading.
Wri0ng skills: Though errors may be few and generally insignificant, answer may be poorly focussed
on the ques?on, lack rigour and/or consist of a series of repe??ve, poorly organised points or
unsubstan?ated asser?ons that do not relate well to one another or to the ques?on, although some
structure discernible; borderline or poor competence in English (some problems of spelling,
punctua?on and grammar that occasionally obscures comprehension).
Analysis: Some knowledge of the analysis to be followed, but frequent errors. Some aJen?on paid to
underlying principles, but lacking in understanding and frequently irrelevant. Some interpreta?on is
given, but it does not place the analysis in any real context
Mark Undergraduate Grade Descriptor
40-44% Scholarship: Minimum acceptable level of understanding; extremely basic and par?al understanding
of key issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately.
Independent learning: Sources restricted to core lecture material with no evidence of wider reading.
Wri0ng skills: Though errors may be few and generally insignificant, answer may be poorly focused on
the ques?on, lack rigor and/or consist of a series of repe??ous, poorly organised points or
unsubstan?ated asser?ons that do not relate well to one another or to the ques?on; borderline
competence in English (some problems of spelling, punctua?on and grammar that occasionally
obscures comprehension).
30-39% Minimum requirements have not been met.
Scholarship: Inadequate knowledge of relevant material; omission of key ideas/material; significant
parts may be irrelevant, superficial or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of some material; mere
paraphrasing of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely men?oned; very weak grasp or
complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material; does not address the topic
or ques?on.
Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness or no awareness of course material and
textbooks; very meagre use of suppor?ng material or unsupported asser?ons; use of irrelevant or
unconvincing material.
Wri0ng skills: Unacceptable use of English (i.e. comprehension obscured by significant and intrusive
errors of spelling, punctua?on and grammar); poor and unclear, or totally incoherent, structure.
Answers that ‘run out of ?me’ or miss the point of the ques?on may fall into this (or a lower) class.
Analysis: Erroneous analysis with mistakes. Very liJle aJen?on paid to the underlying principles of the
analysis. Far from complete with liJle relevance to the problem. Limited interpreta?on that reveals
liJle, if anything, about the meaning
20-29% Scholarship: Displays a superficial apprecia?on of the demands and broad context of the ques?on but
is largely irrelevant, fundamentally flawed, or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of material; mere
paraphrasing of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely men?oned; complete
misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material.
Independent learning: Restricted to a limited awareness of basic course material; unsupported
asser?ons; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.
Wri0ng skills: Minimal structure, though may only list key themes or ideas with limited comment or
explana?on.
Analysis: Analysis has very significant omissions demonstra?ng liJle understanding of problem or
underlying principles. Analysis may be ill suited to problem. Very liJle interpreta?on of meaning of the
analysis.
0-19% Scholarship: No recogni?on of the demands or scope of the ques?on and no serious aJempt to
answer it. Complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material. May have simply
failed to address the ques?on/topic set.
Independent learning: No evidence that the most basic course material has been understood;
unsupported asser?ons; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.
Wri0ng skills: Without structure; comprehension may be completely obscured by poor grammar,
spelling, punctua?on.
Analysis: Virtually complete failure to carry out analysis. No evidence of understanding of underlying
principles and bears no relevance to the problem. No aJempt to interpret or explain the meaning of
the analysis.
Mark Undergraduate Grade Descriptor