Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs MSFM) Assessment Rubric for Master of Science in Finance Management


PLO 1: Demonstrate expert-level understanding of the aspects of finance management including mathematical, statistical, financial, and economic.

Score of 4: Recognizes the framework of real-world business problems, and independently chooses appropriate concepts to describe the problem and to offer a possible solution. Utilizes knowledge in mathematics, statistics, finance and economic to solve this problem.
Score of 3: Recognizes the framework of real-world business problems, but is seeking help to find and apply the appropriate concepts to describe the problem and to offer a possible solution. Lacks knowledge in mathematics, statistics, finance and economic to solve this problem.
Score of 2: Able to recognize the framework of real-world business problem, but is unable to come up with a solution.
Score of 1: Unable to recognize or solve a real-world business problem.

PLO 2: Develop knowledge of finance management including international finance, international securities, commercial banking and lending, investment science, real estate, and stock market.

Score of 4: Clearly identifies and summarizes latest academic theories and successfully explains why/how they are applicable to the business problems or questions. Clearly and accurately labels not only all the factual, conceptual, and value, but also those implicit in the assumptions and the implications of positions and arguments.
Score of 3: Able to identify latest academic theories but fails to successfully explain why/how they are applicable to the business problems or questions. Successfully separates and labels all the factual, conceptual, and value claims, but lacks solid theoretical perspective. 
Score of 2: Able to identify latest academic theories but fails to apply them.
Score of 1: Unable to identify and apply academic theories.

PLO 3: Recognize financial problems and provide creative solutions. Integrate theory and practice for strategic analysis in the field of finance management.

Score of 4: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. Able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology and data analysis.
Score of 3: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. Able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology or data analysis. 
Score of 2: Able to identify, collect, summarize and use in an argument information based on classical and modern academic theories and work of other researchers. Able to plan, design, and execute a research study including applying appropriate methodology and data analysis.
Score of 1: Unable to understand, design or conduct research.

PLO 4: Apply quantitative methods of analysis to analyze financial data.

Score of 4: Able to use advanced quantitative methods to analyze the data; derive conclusions, and report results. Able to communicate quantitative/statistical information to persons with limited or no knowledge in statistics.
Score of 3: Able to use advanced quantitative methods to analyze the data; derive conclusions, and report results. However, struggles to communicate quantitative/statistical information to persons with limited or no knowledge in statistics.
Score of 2: Able to use some quantitative methods to analyze the data; derive conclusions, and report results.
Score of 1: Unable to use quantitative methods to analyze the data.

PLO 5: Communicate to relevant audiences including written and oral communication.

Score of 4: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.
Score of 3: Does most or many of the following: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Draws warranted, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.
Score of 2: Does most or many of the following: Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.
Score of 1: Consistently does all or almost all of the following: Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Does not justify results or procedures, nor explain reasons. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

PLO 6: Work effectively with a team of colleagues on diverse projects.

Score of 4: Looks comfortable and confident in exercising leadership duties. Circulates a prepared agenda in advance, and balances the need for task accomplishment with the needs of individuals in the groups. Listens actively and shows understanding by paraphrasing or by acknowledging and building on others' ideas. Shows respect to all group members. Shares information openly. Assigns tasks by seeking volunteers, delegating as needed. Gives recognition and encouragement.
Score of 3: Engages all group members and keeps the group on track by managing time, providing coaching or guidance, using humor, or resolving differences, as needed. Intervenes when tasks are not moving toward goals. Involves the group in setting challenging goals and planning for their accomplishment.
Score of 2: Shows occasional signs of insecurity about leading, or is overly confident about own leadership skills. Gives too much attention to the task or to interpersonal relations in the group, and asks for ideas and suggestions but neglects to consider them. Lets the group ramble or stray off track too much, or keeps the group so rigidly on track that relevant issues or concerns are ignored.
Score of 1: Gives an impression of reluctance or uncertainty about exercising leadership. Focuses exclusively on the task to be accomplished without regard to the people, or focuses exclusively on the interpersonal relations and attitudes of people in the group without regard to the task, and asks for ideas or suggestions without intending to consider them. May show favoritism to one or more group members.

PLO 7: Identify and analyze the ethical obligations and responsibilities in the field of finance management.

Score of 4: Understands and recognizes the concept of intellectual property, can defend him/herself if challenged, and can properly incorporate the ideas/published works of others into their own work building upon them. Able to articulate the value of information to a free and democratic society, and can use specific criteria to discern objectivity/fact from bias/propaganda.
Score of 3: Gives credit for works used by quoting and listing references. Student is an ethical consumer and producer of information, and understands how free access to information, and free expression, contribute to a democratic society.
Score of 2: Student is an ethical consumer and producer of information, and understands how free access to information, and free expression, contribute to a democratic society, but fails to provide appropriate references to the work of others.
Score of 1: Unclear regarding proper citation format, and/or copies and paraphrases the information and ideas of others without giving credit to authors. Student does not know how to distinguish between information that is objective and biased, and does not know the role that free access to information plays in a democratic society.