Gå til innhold

Tråden for BI-studenter!


fanelli

Anbefalte innlegg

Videoannonse
Annonse

Gikk på BI ett år i fjor og lavere nivå på både medelever og fagene skal man lete lenge etter. Matten kunne jeg stått på som 10.klasse-gutt, og fikk vel A i alle andre fag også - med unntak av faget "Bedriften" der jeg "kun" klarte å få B.

 

Kondolerer til alle som starter på denne simple skolen og betaler i dyre dommer for å skaffe seg en elendig utdannelse.

  • Liker 4
Lenke til kommentar

På meldingen fra lånekassen står det at man må være registrert ved studiestedet og betalt semesteravgift før pengene utbetales. Men det er jo pengene man skal betale studieavgiften med, eller hvertfall må jeg det. Slik som i fjor.

 

Noen som vet noe om når de kommer??

 

Jeg har ikke betalt semesteravgift og jeg fikk pengene i dag. Sendte inn gjeldsbrevet på lørdag.

 

Apropos semesteravgift: Må man ha betalt den for å få studentmedlemskap på Nydalen Athletica? Skulle gjerne ha meldt meg inn så fort som mulig, men har ikke fått noen faktura ennå.

Endret av Tech12
Lenke til kommentar

Er det noen som vet hvordan eksamen er i Business Communication in English - Written Intercultural and Ethical Awareness?

Kanskje et dumt spørsmål, men er eksamen på engelsk eller norsk? min engelsk er VELDIG rusten for tiden! :p

Hele faget er nok på engelsk! Er forsåvidt derfor du har faget i det hele tatt, at studenter skal føle seg trykke på engelsk.
Lenke til kommentar

Er det noen som vet hvordan eksamen er i Business Communication in English - Written Intercultural and Ethical Awareness?

Kanskje et dumt spørsmål, men er eksamen på engelsk eller norsk? min engelsk er VELDIG rusten for tiden! :p

 

Mener det var 3t skriftlig eksamen hvor teori teller 50% og engelsk nivå teller 50%. Og ja alt foregår på engelsk :) Er ingen engelsk ekspert selv men dette faget er nok ett av de enklere.

Lenke til kommentar

Er det noen som vet hvordan eksamen er i Business Communication in English - Written Intercultural and Ethical Awareness?

Kanskje et dumt spørsmål, men er eksamen på engelsk eller norsk? min engelsk er VELDIG rusten for tiden! :p

 

Mener det var 3t skriftlig eksamen hvor teori teller 50% og engelsk nivå teller 50%. Og ja alt foregår på engelsk :) Er ingen engelsk ekspert selv men dette faget er nok ett av de enklere.

 

Grading Guidelines – written exam

 

The two evaluations for overall communicative competence and overall content are weighted equally when the final grade is decided. However, in order to pass the exam students must achieve a passing grade in both content and language, and in all parts of the exam.

 

Communicative Competence

 

The term communicative competence refers to the student’s ability to communicate effectively in written English.  Examiners should focus on grammatical structures (range, level of complexity and correct usage), vocabulary (range, precision, collocations and appropriateness of expression), cohesiveness of discourse (use of linking devices) and spelling. Remember that students are training in their use of English in order to be able to function in English in an international business environment. This should be borne in mind when assessing their communicative competence.

 

 

    A

   

 

Outstanding.  Candidate writes effectively and with ease.  Candidate’s writing makes an impressive impact.  Approaching native-speaker level.  Grammatical accuracy over a wide range of structures. Impressive variation and scope of vocabulary and precision in use. Convincing register and tone.  Appropriate linking devices are used skilfully. No, or few, basic usage errors.  Few, if any, other usage errors and no evidence of first language interference in grammatical constructions.

     

 

    B

 

 

Very good.  Candidate writes effectively and appropriately.  Few grammatical errors even in complex structures. Wide vocabulary range with few slips or gaps. Appropriate linking devices are well used. Appropriate register and tone. Relatively few basic usage errors and only occasional evidence of first language interference in grammatical constructions.    

 

    C

 

 

Good. Candidate writes well. Manages basic topics comfortably but some difficulty with complex topics. Grammatical structures well controlled and varied. Good vocabulary range. Appropriate linking devices are used. Some basic usage errors. Some evidence of first language interference in grammatical constructions, but on those occasions they do not prevent effective communication. Candidate demonstrates awareness of register and tone although occasional lapses may occur.

 

 

    D

 

 

Fair.  Candidate writes fairly well. Occasional difficulty when discussing basic topics and general difficulty when discussing complex topics. Grammatical structures fairly well controlled but limited.  Fair vocabulary in spite of problems in word choice. Attempts to use linking devices are not always successful. Frequent basic usage errors. Evidence of first language interference in grammatical constructions which often prevents the candidate from communicating effectively.  

 

 

    E

 

 

Poor.  Candidate writes with difficulty even when discussing basic topics. Repetitive language use.  Grammatical structures limited in range and complexity. Simple vocabulary used and frequent misuse of vocabulary.  Does not use linking devices effectively.  High frequency of basic usage errors. First language interference often makes it difficult to understand what the candidate is trying to communicate.

 

 

    F

  

 

Fail. Little control over even simple grammatical structures. Clear lack of vocabulary.  Basic usage errors in most sentences. First language interference impedes comprehension to such an extent that it is often difficult to follow what candidate is trying to communicate.

 

 

 

 

Content – written exam

 

The candidate is expected to demonstrate a critical understanding of the main themes and syllabus of the course.

 

 

    A

 

Outstanding.  Candidate demonstrates a thorough understanding of the course syllabus and is able apply theory and concepts analytically. Candidate uses relevant examples to clarify explanations, quotes sources, contributes own opinions and demonstrates original creative thought.

If required by the question, the candidate is able to demonstrate (i) an ability to apply knowledge from the syllabus to the needs of the supposed reader, and (ii) an awareness of the reader’s needs and expectations. Arguments are organised clearly, and expressed logically and persuasively.  The main points are clearly organized and well-balanced.  Key terminology from the syllabus is applied with ease.

 

 

    B

 

Very good.  Candidate shows a very good understanding of the course syllabus. Uses examples effectively to clarify and support claims and viewpoints. If required by the question, the candidate is able to demonstrate (i) a reasonably good ability to apply knowledge from the syllabus to the needs of the supposed reader, as well as satisfactory awareness of the reader’s needs and expectations. The argumentation progresses logically, and ideas are expressed clearly. Candidate uses key terminology from the syllabus competently.

 

 

    C

 

Good.  Candidate displays a good understanding of the syllabus, is able to discuss key information and manages to provide some examples. Certain of the main points are explained clearly, while others might lack information and support. If required by the question, the candidate demonstrates (i) some ability to apply knowledge from the course syllabus to the needs of the supposed reader, and (ii) some awareness of the reader’s needs and expectations. The argumentation progresses relatively logically, and ideas are expressed relatively clearly. Candidate displays knowledge of key terminology, but might not always use it correctly.

 

 

    D

 

Fair.  Candidate is able to make use of key information from the syllabus on a relatively superficial level, but does not demonstrate in-depth understanding.  Writing lacks a clear structure, and the arguments presented may be difficult to follow.  There may be too much information, or some of the information may not be relevant to the task.  Limited support for the main ideas.    

 

 

    E

 

Poor.  Candidate does not appear to be familiar with key areas of the syllabus, and has difficulty discussing key topics convincingly.  Points made follow no logical progression.  Relevant support is not provided for main points.  Candidate uses little key terminology from the syllabus.  

 

 

    F

 

Fail.  Candidate is not familiar with the syllabus (ie candidate either shows no knowledge of the central cultural terminology on the syllabus or no evidence of the context within the ethical dilemma in question), and/or what is written is ambiguous and /or irrelevant.

 

Endret av HoaXed
Lenke til kommentar

Opprett en konto eller logg inn for å kommentere

Du må være et medlem for å kunne skrive en kommentar

Opprett konto

Det er enkelt å melde seg inn for å starte en ny konto!

Start en konto

Logg inn

Har du allerede en konto? Logg inn her.

Logg inn nå
  • Hvem er aktive   0 medlemmer

    • Ingen innloggede medlemmer aktive
×
×
  • Opprett ny...