Capstone Project Rubric
Overall: 20–30 pages, three sections, real data, proper economic reasoning
| Category | Excellent (A) | Good (B) | Adequate (C) | Insufficient (D/F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data use | Multiple real data sources; charts/tables; data properly cited | Real data used; some charts; mostly cited | Some data but relies heavily on impressions; limited citations | No real data; all impressions |
| Economic framework | Correctly applies S&D, AS-AD, elasticity, surplus, externalities, behavioral; frameworks match the question | Mostly correct application; minor framework errors | Some framework application but with significant errors | No recognizable economic framework |
| Market analysis (Part 1) | Thorough S&D analysis of a local market; identifies shifters with evidence; accurate prediction | Good S&D analysis; some shifters identified; reasonable prediction | Basic S&D reference but incomplete analysis | No market analysis |
| Market failure (Part 1) | Correctly identifies and analyzes a local market failure using Ch 11–16 framework | Identifies a failure but analysis is incomplete | Mentions a problem but doesn't apply the framework | No market failure analysis |
| Macro analysis (Part 2) | Compares 2008 and COVID recessions using local data and AS-AD; analyzes policy effects | Covers both recessions; some AS-AD application | Covers one recession; limited macro framework | No macro analysis |
| Contemporary issues (Part 3) | Two+ issues analyzed with depth, local data, and proper frameworks | Two issues with reasonable depth | One issue with some depth | No contemporary analysis |
| Policy recommendation | Specific, data-grounded, tradeoff-aware, addresses who pays and who benefits | Specific recommendation with some tradeoff awareness | Vague recommendation | No recommendation |
| Writing quality | Clear, well-organized, properly cited, professional | Mostly clear; some organization issues | Readable but disorganized | Unclear or unreadable |
| Synthesis | All three sections build on each other; the recommendation flows from the analysis | Sections connect; recommendation is related to analysis | Sections are somewhat disconnected | No synthesis |
| Honesty about uncertainty | Acknowledges what the data can't tell you; notes limitations | Some acknowledgment of limitations | No discussion of uncertainty | Claims certainty where none exists |
Weighting
- Part 1 (Micro): 30%
- Part 2 (Macro): 30%
- Part 3 (Synthesis + Recommendation): 30%
- Writing quality and citations: 10%
A note on grading philosophy
The capstone is not testing whether you memorized the textbook. It is testing whether you can apply economic thinking to a real place with real data. A project that uses simple frameworks correctly and honestly is better than one that name-drops advanced concepts without understanding them. Show your work. Cite your sources. Acknowledge what you don't know. That is what professional economic analysis looks like.