Rubric & Guidelines for a Small Paper: EUSL (HU)

Rubric is based on: HINTON MOOT COURT BALLOT and compare Rubric MCS (HU)
EXAMINER: Mieke Vos-van der Linden:
NAME STUDENT:

ASSESSMENT:

Do not grade on the merits. Although you
may view a ‘case/essay/GP’ as having a
stronger case as a matter of law, take care
not to let your judgement as to the merits
colour your assessment of the participants.
BALLOT GUIDELINES
Start with ‘average’ and adjust up or down.
To help anchor examiner’s scoring across
participants, begin with the assumption
that each participant should receive a score
of ‘average’ and then adjust up and down.
When in doubt on Substance, check the
back of this sheet for qualitative guideli-
nes to aid in distinguishing the different
scores in Substance category (score: 1 - 9).

Presentation skills (are not part of this exam) STYLE AND SUBSTANCE Small paper
1. STYLE 2. SUBSTANCE (‘Small Paper’)
Poise, delivery, eye contact, tone, pace, body NO General knowledge of EU law, strength and cohe-
language, deference, cadence, confidence, SCORE siveness of arguments, familiarity with key cases, use of SCORE
composure, demeanour, control, ability to be supporting precedent and distinction of negative prece- (1-9)
heard, use of time, structure & clarity of pre- dent, correct application of STEPS/facts/arguments most
sentation, etc.(qualitative guidelines on back) relevant to the case, etc.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
VERY NEARLY
DISASTROUS VERY POOR POOR FAIL AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT PERFECT
GOOD

Problems are Passable, but No issues

complete Major unremarkable. Minor worth
Several One or two Several
impediment problems Moderate problems One or two minor mentioning.
major major minor
to com- across the improvements across the problems. Nearly
problems. problems. problems.
munication. board. needed. board. flawless.

STRUCTURE & ORGANISATION AND HANDLING EXAMINER’S QUESTION(S)

3. STRUCTURE & ORGANISATION (‘Small Paper’)
Clear document (intro, concl, headings, para., etc.) NO
& argumentative (red/central thread) structure. SCORE SCORE
Clear overarching design to arguments & smooth (1-5)
transitions between topics, correct source refe-
rence, within word limit & rel. (case) ‘guidelines’.

1 2 3 4 5
POOR FAIL AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT

Several major One or two major Passable, but unremarkable. Several minor areas for impro- One or two minor areas for impro-
problems. problems. Moderate improvements needed. vement, but no major problems. vement, but no major problems.

Assessment & feedback: on ‘Small paper’ (check: GradeWork)!P

RUBRIC EUSL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.1

 QUALITATIVE GUIDELINES
Includes poise, delivery, eye contact, tone, pace, body language, deference, cadence, confidence, composure, demeanour,
STYLE control, ability to be heard, use of time, structure & clarity of present., etc. (Presentation skills (are not part of this exam))

NEARLY
9 PERFECT
Smooth flow, no unnecessary pauses, excellent rapport with audience/examiner, very persuasive, engaging body language.

8 EXCELLENT Good flow, uses body language appropriately, good rapport with audience/examiner, persuasive presentation.

Minor interruptions in flow, clear speaking, some use of body language, somewhat persuasive, may appear to lose confidence
7 VERY GOOD
once or twice.

Occasional breaks in flow, may have some minor distracting habits, inconsistent cadence or tone, possible lack of confidence
6 GOOD
at times.

Stylistic problems have a very limited impact on ability to convey meaning, no positive use of body language, no noteworthy
5 AVERAGE
distracting habits.

Loss of poise, occasional confusion, some distracting habits, rarely uses body language effectively. Style problems have some
4 FAIL
impact on ability to convey meaning.

Never establishes good rapport with audience/examiner due to a number of distracting habits, poor cadence and tone, and
3 POOR
generally unpersuasive and unengaging delivery. Substance is sometimes obscured by stylistic problems.

There are long and uncomfortable pauses, and body language is overwhelmingly more distracting than engaging. Stylistic
2 VERY POOR
problems frequently interfere with the speaker’s ability to convey substance.

1 DISASTROUS Substance is totally overshadowed by stylistic problems.

Small Paper: General knowledge of EU law, strength and cohesiveness of arguments, familiarity with key cases,
SUBSTANCE use of supporting precedent and distinction of negative precedent, correct application of facts/arguments most
relevant to the case, etc.

NEARLY Strongest possible arguments are made, negative precedent is distinguished convincingly, anticipated by argumentative
9 PERFECT framework, full knowledge of the case and relevant precedent, also very creative (correct) application to the situation at
issue.

Makes strong arguments, knows key cases very well and other cases as needed, adapts argumentative framework, great
8 EXCELLENT
knowledge of the case and relevant precedent, also creative (correct) application to the situation at issue.

7 VERY GOOD Some arguments need to be developed or fleshed out, but generally strong on all substantive issues.

Impressive knowledge of the case and relevant precedent, but uncreative (correct) application to the situation at issue.
6 GOOD
May have left one or two loose ends, but generally knew what they were talking about.

Demonstrated knowledge of the case and key precedents, but no overarching argumentative approach or creativity. Also
5 AVERAGE
sufficient (correct) application to the situation at issue. With moderate preparation, most law students could reach this
level of mastery.

Some knowledge of the case and a few key precedents, but no overarching argumentative approach. Also insufficient
4 FAIL
(incorrect) application to the situation at issue. May box self into corner or have several loose ends. May not have thought
every issue all the way through.

A shaky understanding of the key issues of the case and the facts, but very limited knowledge of the relevant precedent.
3 POOR
Arguments are void of creativity, and irrelevant (incorrect) application to the situation at issue and Examiner’s
questions are not responded to completely.

RUBRIC EUSL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.2

 Arguments do not tie together, almost no knowledge of any precedent. May struggle with the facts of the case at issue.
2 VERY POOR
No (incorrect) application to the situation at issue. Difficult to imagine much time went into preparing.

1 DISASTROUS So unprepared and illogical that little of any real substance is conveyed.

Guidelines for the Small Paper for EU Social Law

Small Paper regarding European Union Social Law: 30% of final grade

- The Small Paper must be a ‘pass’; students need a min. grade of 5,5 to pass the Small Paper (and
need a min. grade of 5,5 to pass the written exam); both elements (Small Paper and written exam)
must both be graded with min. 5,5 to pass the course of EUSL.

- All instructions from the case and from the ‘Rubric & Guidelines for Small Paper must be followed.

- The Examiner may at any time inform about student’s individual contributions and/or decide on an
(extra) individual short oral exam (spot check) if in doubt.

- You are not allowed to use AI (like f.i. GPchat, etc.) for this essay assignment and GP.

- Choose one of the topics discussed in the EU social law course and select a corresponding Directive
covering that topic.

- Write a small paper on the implementation of this Directive in your own Member State.

- Issues to be examined in the paper:

o Short summary of the EU legislation (purpose of the Directive; key provisions)

o Short description of national law implementing EU Directive; In which national law and area of law
has the directive been implemented? Which authority is responsible for applying national law
implementing the directive?

o Discuss whether you think the EU legislation has been correctly implemented in national law.

o Discussion of two national judgements on these rules; discuss the facts and legal issues in the
judgement; how does the national court apply EU law in this case (direct effect etc.)?

- Please use additional information to be found law journal articles, text books, case law etc.

- correctly use 'OSCOLA’ and the ‘CRAAP’ test for correct source reference for relevant legal sources
(online and offline).

- RUBRIC: final grade

Small paper (individual grade)

- Substance (2): score 1-9 pt plus

- Structure (3): score 1-5 pt
RUBRIC EUSL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.3
- Total: 14 pt max.

1) – 1,0

2) – 1,4

3) – 2,1

4) – 2,9

5) – 3,6

6) – 4,3

7) – 5,0

8) – 5,7

9) – 6,4

10) – 7,1

11) – 7,9

12) – 8,6

13) – 9,3

14) – 10

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS

The following formal requirements are mandatory:

- Make a front page including your names;

- Line spacing 1,5;
- Use page numbering;
- Use headings in your text in Italics;
- Use footnotes if you refer to other sources or to judgements assigned (mention the rel. para. of your
case; as taught for MCS in week A1);
- Your (essay) assignment will be judged on plagiarism, this also entails not using footnotes and citations
when using other sources;
- The essay should consist of min. 2000 – max. 2500 words (you have a margin of minus/plus of 10%;
footnotes are not included).

I) DEADLINE: the small paper must be handed in via Gradework. Check the instructions on
CANVAS) at the latest Wednesday 31 January 2024. If you run into any difficulties, make
sure you e-mail your small paper in time to: mieke.vos-vanderlinden@hu.nl

Good luck and have fun!

Mieke Vos-van der Linden

RUBRIC EUSL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.4