- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hi,
I’m attending classes in my local universities, my lecturer told us to describe the model (eg define each of the PESTEL) before quoting the scenario, and give some real life example that we know of relevant to the case. Is that necessary?
And if the question ask us to evaluate / analyse the environment, do we need to state the ways to overcome, or just the effect it has on the company?
DO NOT describe models (unless asked to). If you are asked to use PESTEL to analyse a company’s position, your analysis will prove (or disprove!) that you know what the model is talking about. One of the examiner’s big criticisms is that students describe models rather than using them.
If asked to evaluate/analyse you just need to describe the effect and its potential seriousness for the company. Dealing with the problem would be another requirement.
So how do we know how much to write? I read examiner’s marking guide, sometimes it says there is 1 mark for each point and sometimes 2. How to decide?
And if we have more points than the marks required, do we just choose the one we have more confident in and ignore the others? It’s quite impossible to include everything in such time pressure.You choose how much to write by looking at the marks and working howlong you can write for.
You are correct in saying that marking schemes do differ, but a good rule of thumb is if a question says something like “Identify and explain the environmental factor affecting the company” the you get 1/2 mark for identification and 1 mark for explanation.
If there are 6 marks then this implies 4 points you want to make. If you have time, tag a couple more on if you spot them. There might be 8 things you could say, but if you identify and explain 4 you can get full marks.
Whatever you do don’t spend 15 minutes on a part of a question where only 6 marks (6 x 1.8 = 10.8 minutes). are available.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.