GRADING
MECHANICS (30)
(5) The memo is well written with a clear statement of the issues involved, a lucid discussion of the
analysis, a clear choice of the preferred accounting treatment and why it is superior to competing
treatments, and if the issues are complex or many, a brief summary. The memo flows and smooth
transitions are provided from one section to another. Adequate citations are provided.
(4) Although the memo is sound and contains all of the necessary components, some of the components are
merely adequate. Citations may not conform to published format. Word choice could be improved.
(3) The memo contains all of the components which are of adequate quality however, the memo does not
flow well. Word choice may lack professionalism as demonstrated by the use of conversational phrases.
(2) The memo contains homonyms, errors in grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling. The memo is written
in first person.
(1) The memo is difficult to read and consequently the ideas are not adequately conveyed to the reader.
ANALYSIS (40)
(5) The significant issues of the case are identified. The issues are thoroughly researched in the
professional literature. All relevant accounting approaches are considered.
(4)The significant issues are identified however the research may not be adequate to determine all relevant
approaches on all issues.
(3) Most of the significant issues are identified and the research is adequate enough to determine most of
the relevant approaches. Some of the details of the case are misstated which may lead to inappropriate
conclusions.
(2) Only the obvious issues are identified. The research fails to determine appropriate accounting
treatments of the issues.
(1) The major issues are not identified. The research is inadequate to determine an acceptable accounting
treatment.
CONCLUSIONS (30)
(5) The conclusions follow logically from the research of the professional literature. The hierarchy of
GAAP is followed. All relevant approaches are provided and the choice of the superior approach is
supported with sound arguments. If no professional pronouncement exists a well reasoned argument for
accounting by analogy is provided.
(4) The conclusions follow logically from the research. The hierarchy of GAAP is followed. Most of the
relevant accounting treatments are provided and the superior approach is identified along with reasons for
its choice at least for most of the issues.
(3) The conclusions are supported by the research. The hierarchy of GAAP is followed. Only some of the
relevant treatments are provided. The superior approach is incorrectly specified for some or all of the
issues. Reasons for selecting one approach over others are not adequately justified. The correct choice is
made but for the wrong or undisclosed reasons.
(2) The conclusions are not adequately supported. Only one approach is provided when others may be
acceptable. The reasoning is not adequately documented or is not sound.
(1) No approach is delineated as preferred. There is little research to support the selected approach. The
hierarchy of GAAP is ignored.