ULSB Assessment Brief
Foundations of Economics MN1017
Choose one of the essay topics below and write an essay of up to 1500 words (excluding references,
check the list of penalties for exceeding this limit at the end of the assessment brief).
Topic 1
British Rail operations were privatised in 1994-1997. Nowadays, the passenger services are provided by private
train operating companies. They usually bid for seven- to eight-year contracts to run individual franchises. In
the past, there have been calls for renationalising the provision of passenger services (so that the state would
operate trains etc., just as it does with tracks, signalling and large stations). Discuss advantages and
disadvantages of renationalisation in this context. In doing so, you should include the following issues:
natural monopolies and competition
pricing and consumer/producer surplus,
efficiency.
Topic 2
In the United Kingdom, access to motorways is typically free with only limited exceptions. However, they are
provided as toll roads in many countries such as Italy (Autostrade) and France (Autoroutes). Toll roads are
frequently said to be a typical example of club goods. Explain the advantages and disadvantages of toll roads
compared to toll-free roads by focussing on the nature of club goods and/or public goods. In doing so, you
should include the following issues:
congestion
social benefits and costs
investment.
Advice and Guidance:
(a) Indicate the topic you are writing on in the title of your essay.
(b) In both cases, start by presenting relevant data. This should help you make your assessment on an ‘’as-is’’
basis. In doing so, try to focus on primary sources (e.g. if a journalist is citing a data source they are
summarising, make sure to look directly into the source to avoid copying mistakes of commentators).
(c) We expect you to refer to a range of sources in your essay. We are not providing any guidance on what
those sources should be. Being able to tell a credible source from an untrustworthy one will be taken into
account in marking.
(d) As a starting point, you should consult the textbooks for this module. A good idea is to search for specialist
surveys, independent think-tank analyses and government documents. Demonstrating an ability of
surveying research papers related to your topic is not required but can help you make your essay truly
outstanding.
(e) A well developed essay has a clear structure (e.g. one thought, one paragraph) with introduction, main
body and conclusions. It is absolutely fine to have personal opinion about the subject that you are
discussing, but make sure you provide supporting evidence for all your claims.
(f) For further information regarding marking please consult the attached Undegraduate Grade Descriptor.
All four categories (Scholarship, Independent Learning, Writing Skills, Analysis) are relevant for this
assignment.
(g) Going beyond the word limit will be penalised, please find the table outlining the penalties below. You
should not feel obliged to end your essay with the word count just slightly below the limit. However, not
giving enough thought to the topic (e.g. by writing a very short piece) will most likely be reflected in a poor
grade.
| Word count | Penalty |
| 1501-1600 | 10 marks deducted |
| 1601-1700 | 25 marks deducted |
| 1701-1800 | 40 marks deducted |
| 1801 or more | no marks awarded |
| Mark | Undergraduate Grade Descriptor |
| 85-100% | Scholarship: Excellent application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; perceptive; demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject and extensive and detailed critical 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 appreciation 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. Writing skills: Writing skills are excellent; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well-structured and sustained, and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are reasoned and justified 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 quantitative modules analysis is complete and entirely relevant to the problem. |
| 70-84% | Scholarship: Very good application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject; displays detailed thought and consideration 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. Writing skills: Writing skills are well-developed; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well structured and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are justified by evidence. Analysis: Analytical steps carried out carefully and correctly demonstrating that it is based on a sound understanding. Analysis is relevant to the problem and is complete and is placed in a clear context. |
| Mark | Undergraduate Grade Descriptor |
| 60-69% | Scholarship: Good, broad-based understanding of subject manner; makes effective use of understanding to provide an informative, balanced argument that is focussed on the topic; reveals some attempt at creative, 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 effectively to illustrate points and justify arguments. Writing skills: Arguments are presented logically and coherently within a clear structure and are justified with appropriate supporting evidence; capably written 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 interpretation which conveys most of its meaning. |
| 50-59% | Scholarship: Some but limited engagement with, and understanding of, relevant material but may lack focus, organisation, breadth, and/or depth; relatively straightforward ideas are expressed clearly and fluently though there may be little or no attempt to synthesise or evaluate more complex ideas; exhibits limited independent creative thought; adequate analysis but some key points only mentioned in passing; arguments satisfactory but some errors and perhaps lacking completeness and relevance in parts. Independent learning: Sources may range beyond lecture material and textbooks though effective engagement with and use of the wider literature is limited. Writing skills: The question is addressed in a reasonably clear, coherent and structured manner but some sections may be poorly written making the essay difficult to follow, obscuring key points or leading to over generalisation; competently written with a good use of English throughout (few, if any, errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation). Answers that have upper second-class qualities 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 little irrelevant in place but a reasonable interpretation which goes some way to convey its meaning |
| 45-49% | Scholarship: Minimum acceptable level of understanding; extremely basic and partial 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. Writing skills: Though errors may be few and generally insignificant, answer may be poorly focussed on the question, lack rigour and/or consist of a series of repetitive, poorly organised points or unsubstantiated assertions that do not relate well to one another or to the question, although some structure discernible; borderline or poor competence in English (some problems of spelling, punctuation and grammar that occasionally obscures comprehension). Analysis: Some knowledge of the analysis to be followed, but frequent errors. Some attention paid to underlying principles, but lacking in understanding and frequently irrelevant. Some interpretation is given, but it does not place the analysis in any real context |
| 40-44% | Scholarship: Minimum acceptable level of understanding; extremely basic and partial 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. Writing skills: Though errors may be few and generally insignificant, answer may be poorly focused on the question, lack rigor and/or consist of a series of repetitious, poorly organised points or unsubstantiated assertions that do not relate well to one another or to the question; borderline competence in English (some problems of spelling, punctuation and grammar that occasionally obscures comprehension). |
| Mark | Undergraduate Grade Descriptor |
| 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 mentioned; very weak grasp or complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material; does not address the topic or question. Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness or no awareness of course material and textbooks; very meagre use of supporting material or unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material. Writing skills: Unacceptable use of English (i.e. comprehension obscured by significant and intrusive errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar); poor and unclear, or totally incoherent, structure. Answers that ‘run out of time’ or miss the point of the question may fall into this (or a lower) class. Analysis: Erroneous analysis with mistakes. Very little attention paid to the underlying principles of the analysis. Far from complete with little relevance to the problem. Limited interpretation that reveals little, if anything, about the meaning |
| 20-29% | Scholarship: Displays a superficial appreciation of the demands and broad context of the question but is largely irrelevant, fundamentally flawed, or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of material; mere paraphrasing of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely mentioned; complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material. Independent learning: Restricted to a limited awareness of basic course material; unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material. Writing skills: Minimal structure, though may only list key themes or ideas with limited comment or explanation. Analysis: Analysis has very significant omissions demonstrating little understanding of problem or underlying principles. Analysis may be ill suited to problem. Very little interpretation of meaning of the analysis. |
| 0-19% | Scholarship: No recognition of the demands or scope of the question and no serious attempt to answer it. Complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material. May have simply failed to address the question/topic set. Independent learning: No evidence that the most basic course material has been understood; unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material. Writing skills: Without structure; comprehension may be completely obscured by poor grammar, spelling, punctuation. Analysis: Virtually complete failure to carry out analysis. No evidence of understanding of underlying principles and bears no relevance to the problem. No attempt to interpret or explain the meaning of the analysis. |