ECON2003 MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS S2 2021
1 / 4
ECON2003 S2 2020 Individual Assignment 1
Due 3pm Friday September 3, 2021
BACKGROUND AND QUESTION:
Listen to the Freakanomics podcast ‘Will Work-from-Home Work Forever?’ (Ep. 464)
https:
freakonomics.com/podcast/work-from-home/
Discuss the economic and related social issues* concerning the future of working from home post
COVID-19 pandemic. (*Related social issues may include ethical, global, environmental,
sustainability, social responsibility issues, etc.)
You should structure your assignment around the following:
(i) Issues: Identify and explain the main economic and related social issues concerning the
future of working from home post COVID-19 pandemic.
(ii) Analysis: Analyse the issues identified in (i). You must use relevant theories, concepts
and definitions.
(iii) Position: Derive your position on the issues identified in (i). You must provide evidence
y interpreting, evaluating, integrating and synthesising your analysis done in (ii).
(iv) Critique: Defend your position derived in (iii) against the best possible argument that
may be raised in opposition to yours. You must consider the assumptions and
implications of your position.
https:
freakonomics.com/podcast/work-from-home
ECON2003 MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS S2 2021
2 / 4
IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
General
The assignment is strictly 1250 words maximum (excluding reference list). It is not necessary to have
equal word count for each part above but keep in mind each section is equally weighted (see below).
The assignment must be prepared using a word processing program (e.g. Microsoft Word). As
detailed below, however, your final submission must be in PDF format.
Any included figures should be prepared electronically (e.g. Microsoft Word drawing tool).
The assignment will count towards 15% of your final mark.
Referencing
All sources used in the assignment should be appropriately referenced using a standard referencing
system (e.g. Harvard style). The reference list will not count towards your final word count. Please
consult Macquarie University Li
ary’s resources for further information about referencing.
There is no ideal number of references but around five to eight good references would provide a
enchmark for an assignment of this length.
Submission
The assignment is due 3pm Friday September 3, XXXXXXXXXXStudents who have not submitted before the
deadline will be penalised 10% of full marks per day (accepted up to 96 hours late). No extensions
will be granted except in cases where an application for Special Consideration has been approved.
You must submit through iLearn using the Turnitin link provided. Submission links will be open two
weeks prior to the deadline. All submissions must be in PDF format. Turnitin often encounters
problems with Microsoft Word files that include figures and/or tables. Failure to submit as a PDF file
may result in a marker being unable to mark your submission.
Macquarie Business School uses plagiarism detecting software (Turnitin) on all submissions. By
submitting through Turnitin each student acknowledges the University’s policies relating to
plagiarism and academic misconduct. Please see Unit Guide for more information.
You are welcome (and encouraged) to work with other students to assist in developing your
knowledge and ideas but ultimately the final submission must represent your own work.
Marking
The assignment is intended to primarily assess the Program Learning Outcome related to ‘Ethics’ but
also relates to ‘Problem Solving and Critical Thinking’ and ‘Communication’. Presentation,
grammar, spelling and co
ect referencing practice will also be considered in marking.
A detailed marking ru
ic is provided as an appendix table in this document.
http:
libguides.mq.edu.au/content.php?pid=459099&sid=3758848
https:
staff.mq.edu.au/work/strategy-planning-and-governance/university-policies-and-procedures/policies/academic-honesty
https:
staff.mq.edu.au/work/strategy-planning-and-governance/university-policies-and-procedures/policies/academic-honesty
ECON2003 MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS S2 2021
3 / 4
CHECKLIST:
Document Preparation Checklist
☐ My assignment is typed using a word processor (e.g. MS Word).
☐ My assignment is written in full sentences and in clear language.
☐ My assignment is proofread and grammatical e
ors and typos are minimised.
☐ My assignment is written under the word limit, 1250 words.
☐ Diagrams are not distorted and properly inserted into the master document.
☐ My assignment is saved as a PDF file of a size less than 40MB.
After-Submission Checklist
☐ I have double-checked whether the assignment was properly uploaded.
☐ I have received the Turnitin receipt via email.
ECON2003 MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS S2 2021
4 / 4
APPENDIX: Individual Assignment Marking Ru
ic
Criteria Fail (F) Pass (P) Credit (Cr) Distinction (D) High Distinction (HD)
Articulation of issues (20%)
Economic and related social* issues
are clearly stated and succinctly yet
comprehensively explained as they
elate to theories, concepts and
definitions. [* May include ethical,
global, environmental, sustainability,
social responsibility issues, etc]
Student does not provide any
description of economic and
elated social issues showing no
understanding of the topic.
Student poorly describes few
economic and related social issues
demonstrating limited understanding
of the topic.
Student mostly effectively describes
several economic and related social
issues demonstrating fair
understanding of the topic.
Student effectively describes multiple
economic and related social issues
demonstrating deep understanding of
the topic.
Student effectively and creatively
describes multiple economic and
elated social issues demonstrating
an extensive understanding of the
topic.
Analysis (20%)
Issues are analysed using relevant and
appropriate theories, concepts and
definitions. Analysis includes research
studies or examples. Analysis takes
into account diverse/competing
perspectives.
Student fails to demonstrate an
analysis substantiating any of
made claims through theories,
concepts, definitions, research
studies or examples. Student
provides information and no
analysis, ideas/solutions.
Student ordinarily demonstrates an
analysis, develop poor arguments,
struggling to substantiate claims
through few and/or i
elevant
theories, concepts, definitions,
esearch studies or examples.
Student mostly provides information
and limited analysis, ideas/solutions.
Student accurately demonstrates an
analysis; develops fair arguments but
they lack substantiation through
elevant theories, concepts,
definitions, research studies and/or
examples.
Student accurately demonstrates an
analysis; skilfully develops arguments,
substantiating made claims through
elevant theories, concepts,
definitions, research studies and/or
examples.
Student accurately and insightfully
demonstrates an analysis;
masterfully develops arguments,
substantiating made claims through
elevant theories, concepts,
definitions, research studies and/or
examples.
Position (20%)
The analysis is interpreted, evaluated,
integrated and/or synthesised to
support and provide evidence for a
clear overall position, demonstrating
independent well-reasoned economic
and ethical judgement.
Student fails to support and
provide evidence for a clear and
independent position. There is no
interpretation and integration of
the analysis for an independent
easoned judgement.
Student struggles to demonstrate a
clear position and independent
easoned judgement. Student
ordinarily provides an interpretation
and integration of the analysis.
Student accurately demonstrates a
clear position and independent
easoned judgement. Student mostly
effectively provides an interpretation
and integration of the analysis.
Student skilfully demonstrates a clear
position and independent reasoned
judgement. Student effectively
provides an interpretation and
integration of the analysis.
Student skilfully and insightfully
demonstrates a clear position and
independent reasoned judgement.
Student effectively and creatively
provides an interpretation and
integration of the analysis.
Critique (20%)
Assumptions, objections and
implications of the position are
identified, considered and
appropriately defended.
Student fails to identify
assumptions, objections and
implications for an independent
position regarding the topic.
Student struggles to identify
assumptions, objections and
implications for an independent
position regarding the topic.
Student accurately identifies
assumptions, objections and
implications for an independent
position regarding the topic.
Student skilfully identifies
assumptions, objections and
implications for an independent
position regarding the topic.
Student skilfully and insightfully
identifies assumptions, objections
and implications of an independent
position regarding the topic.
Organisation and evidence of
esearch (20%)
Clarity of structure, transitions
etween paragraphs, accuracy,
academic tone, relevance, academic
sources
Text has no formal structure.
Very poor text logic with
frequent use of contradictions.
Absence of academic tone due to
consistent use of informal
language. Referencing is non-
conforming to standard (e.g.
Harvard) style and/or absent.
Articles are from non-reputable
sources and/or are i
elevant to
and do not substantiate made
claims.
Text has under-developed formal
structure. Poor text logic with
ecu
ent use of contradictions.
Inappropriate academic tone due to
frequent use of informal language.
Referencing is mainly inaccurate
and/or does not conform to a
standard (e.g. Harvard) style. Articles
are often from non-scientific sources,
i
elevant to arguments, do not help
to substantiate made claims.
Text has formal structure.
Satisfactory text logic with some use
of contradictions. Inconsistent
academic tone due to use of informal
language.
Referencing is fairly accurate using
standard (e.g. Harvard) style.
Articles are mostly from reputable
sources; are relevant to arguments
and substantiate made claims.
Text has clear and well developed
formal structure.
Excellent text logic with miniscule use
of contradictions. Appropriate
academic tone.
Referencing is mainly accurate using
standard (e.g. Harvard) style.
Articles are from reputable sources;
are very relevant to arguments;
thoughtfully substantiate made
claims.
Text has clear and original formal
structure.
Outstanding text logic with no use
of contradictions. Appropriate and
confident academic tone.
Referencing is impeccably accurate
using standard (e.g. Harvard) style.
Articles are from highly reputable
sources; are highly relevant to
arguments; insightfully substantiate
made claims.