ECON 300 Forecasting Paper Grading Rubric

Evaluation Category	A	B	C	D	F
1. Microtheme (Thesis statement and 3-5 key points.)	Scholarly, compelling and specific thesis statement. Key points are meaningful, interesting and clearly support student's thesis. Points: 15	Clear thesis statement. Key points are generally meaningful and interesting, but do not entirely support thesis. Points: 13	Vague thesis statement that shifts in focus. Key points may be meaningful and interesting out of context, but connection to thesis is left unclear. Points: 10	Vague thesis statement that lacks focus. Key points are not particularly meaningful and interesting and connection to thesis is questionable. Points: 8	Poor thesis statement that lacks focus. Key points are limited, unclear, trivial, inconsistent, or absent. Points: 5
2. Thesis Statement and Topic Sentences	Thesis statement clear, concise and fully supported by subsequent writing; and topic sentences describe respective paragraphs perfectly. Points: 15	Thesis statement mostly clear, fairly concise and supported by subsequent writing; and topic sentences describe respective paragraphs very well. Points: 13	Thesis statement somewhat clear, somewhat concise and somewhat supported by subsequent writing; and topic sentences describe respective paragraphs adequately. Points: 10	Thesis statement unclear, unfocused and poorly supported by subsequent writing; and topic sentences describe respective paragraphs poorly. Points: 8	Thesis statement lacks clarity, conciseness and is not supported by subsequent writing; and topic sentences fail to describe respective paragraphs. Points: 5
3. Organization	Effective sequence of ideas, clearly organized and logically consistent. Topics, key points, and supporting details are all clearly identified. Points: 15	Somewhat effective sequence of ideas, well organized and consistent. Topics, key points, and supporting details somewhat unclear. Points: 13	Ineffective sequence of ideas, and organization. Some ideas seem illogical and/or unrelated. Topics, key points, and supporting details not well identified. Points: 10	Ineffective sequence of ideas and organization. Topics, key points, and supporting details poorly identified. Points: 8	Absent sequence of ideas and organization. Topics, key points, and supporting details not identified. Points: 5
4. Analysis	Excellent assessment of multiple, reliable statistical results, presented as evidence for logical, relevant assertions. Points: 15	Above average assessment of multiple, reliable statistical results offered as evidence. Points: 13	Average assessment of limited, incomplete, or unreliable statistical results. Points: 10	Poor assessment of limited or unreliable information sources. Use of generalizations. Points: 8	Failed to assess implications of statistical results adequately. Relies solely on author’s experiences. Points: 5
5. Content	Breadth and depth of analysis compelling. Points: 25	Breadth and depth of analysis informative. Points: 23	Breadth and depth of analysis fair. Points: 20	Breadth and depth of analysis poor. Points: 18	Breadth and depth of analysis lacking. Points: 12
6. Grammar and Mechanics	No errors in punctuation, grammar, or spelling. Points: 15	No more than two errors in punctuation, grammar, or spelling. Points: 13	An average of less than one error per page in punctuation, grammar, or spelling. Points: 10	An average of two error per page in punctuation, grammar, or spelling. Points: 8	An average of more than two error per page in punctuation, grammar, or spelling. Points: 5