Критерии оценок языковых компетенций

КРИТЕРИИ ОЦЕНОК ЯЗЫКОВЫХ КОМПЕТЕНЦИЙ

Бакалавриат, IV курс

«Юриспруденция»/ «ГМУ»

Реферирование текста устное/ комментирование на английском языке предложенного высказывания/ темы

В устном реферировании на английском языке оценивается эффективность передачи студентом содержания и информации исходного текста на английском языке с определенной заданием структурой и объемом  реферативного изложения.

Ошибкой в реферировании считается искаженная или неправильно переданная информация, грубые нарушения норм английского языка, повлекшие за собой нарушение коммуникации.

При оценивании реферирования учитываются грамматические, лексические, стилистические ошибки, в также нарушение структуры и правил реферирования первичных текстов при создании вторичных текстов.

Параметры и критерии оценивания устного ответа на экзамене 

параметры	А (90-100%)	В (82-89%)	С (75-81%)	D (68-74%)	E (60-67%)	F (< 60%)
Содержание (20-45%)	41-45	36-40	31-35	26-30	20-25	< 20
Лексика/ грамматика (15-35%)	32-35	28-31	24-27	20-23	15-19	< 15
Форма (5-20%)	18-20	15-17	12-14	9-11	6-8	< 5

Штрафные баллы

Содержание (max. 45%)

- Тезис не соответствует теме, аргументы не в полной мере соответствуют тезису и/ или отсутствуют конкретные факты и примеры, подкрепляющие аргументы – 10%

- Нарушения логики (необоснованные аналогии/ обобщения) – 10 %

- Отсутствие вывода, соответствующего теме, тезису и аргументам – 5 %

- Неадекватный ответ на вопрос собеседника – 10 %

Лексика/ Грамматика (max. 35%)

- Используемая лексика не соответствует этапу обучения – 5-7%

- Неадекватная лексическая сочетаемость – 7-10 %

- Допускаются грубые грамматические ошибки – 5-10 %

- Отсутствие адекватных средств связи при аргументации – 3-5%

Форма и структура высказывания (max.20%) 

- Отсутствие четкой структуры высказывания (вступление, основная часть, заключение) – 3-5%

- Медленный темп речи и длительные паузы – 5 %

- Несоблюдение официального стиля речи – 5 %

- Произношение, затрудняющее понимание – 5 %

- Сообщение < 2 минут – 3 %

Оценка зрительно-письменного и зрительно-устного перевода

«Отлично» – перевод выполнен на 90-100 %

«Хорошо» – перевод выполнен на 75-89 %

«Удовлетворительно» – перевод выполнен на 60-74 %

«Неудовлетворительно» – перевод выполнен ниже требований, установленных для оценки «Удовлетворительно»

Процентное соотношение ошибок при оценивании перевода

Искажение уменьшает общую оценку за перевод на 10 %.

Неточность уменьшает общую оценку на 5 %.

Стилистическая ошибка уменьшает общую оценку на 3 %.

Незнание термина уменьшает общую оценку на 3 %

Незавершенность перевода при зрительно-письменном переводе

на 5-10 % от объема исходного текста ведет к снижению оценки на 5 %;

  на 15-20 % от объема – на 10-15 %;

на 25-30 % от объема – на 25 %;

на 35-40 % от объема – на 35 %;

на 50 % и более – неудовлетворительная оценка (независимо от качества перевода части текста)

Общая оценка за экзамен рассчитывается из 100 баллов, из которых на письменный перевод  с английского языка (согласно предложенному заданию) – 30 баллов (по 15 баллов на каждый предложенный текст); реферирование текста устное – 20 баллов; зрительно-устный перевод с английского языка – 20 баллов; зрительно-устный перевод с русского языка – 20 баллов; комментарий на английском языке по предложенной профессиональной теме – 10 баллов.

Факультет государственного управления МГИМО МИД РФ

Экзамен по английскому языку (основному), IV курс

Направление – «Юриспруденция»

Уровень «Бакалавриат»

Билет №

Реферативное изложение на английском языке аутентичного текста  общеэкономической направленности. Беседа по проблематике текста  объемом 3250-3300п. зн. Время подготовки – 20 минут. Высказывание на английском языке на предложенную профессиональную тему  (2 минуты). Перевод с листа на русский язык предложений по языку профессии. Объем 400 – 600 п. зн. Перевод с листа на английский язык предложений по языку профессии.  Объем 400 – 600 п. зн.

Образец предложений для двустороннего перевода с листа

1) The third element in the procedure for the conclusion of a contract is conformance with the requisite form that may be stipulated by law or contract. The general rule is that unless otherwise required by law or contract, a contract may be concluded in oral form.

2) Любой спор, возникающий по настоящему договору или в связи с ним, или нарушение, прекращение или недействительность настоящего договора регулируются специальным арбитражем в соответствии с действующим на соответствующий момент времени арбитражным регламентом.

3) The common law favors the freedom of assignment, so an assignment will generally be permitted unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the contract. Where assignment is thus permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract.

4) Заемщику не разрешается уступать или передавать права и обязательства по настоящему Договору займа без предварительного письменного согласия Кредитора.

Текст для письменного перевода на русский язык

LIMITED COMPANIES

A third way to run a business is as a limited company. The business is registered with Companies House and is an entity of its own. There are more rules associated with running a business this way but there may be tax advantages. Those involved have shares in the business proportional to their involvement. A limited company is regarded in law as a separate legal personality, distinct from its shareholders. For this reason, if the company for any reason is unable to meet its liabilities, the shareholders will only be personally liable for the unpaid amount of their shares. If the shares are fully paid, then the shareholder cannot be asked to pay anything further.

It is therefore, strictly speaking, incorrect to say that a company has limited liability; it is the shareholders whose liability is limited – up to the unpaid amount of their shares. This situation must be contrasted with the personal liability of a sole trader or a partner in a partnership (with the exception of a partner with limited liability or in the case of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)). In these cases the sole trader or partner may be personally liable for any debts which the business is unable to meet. As noted above, there may be instances when personal liability cannot be limited. This situation usually affects directors who may be personally liable if they have acted fraudulently of negligently. In particular, you should be aware of the personal liability which can accrue to directors if their company trades whilst it is insolvent.

Whilst the limitation of liability can prove attractive, you should be aware that in certain cases, notably when dealing with banks or other financial organisations, personal guarantees may be requested from the directors, and/or shareholders. This may then negate this particular advantage.

Образец текста для реферирования общеэкономической направленности.

Объем -  3252 п. зн.

THE BUSINESS OF SHARING

WHY buy when you can rent? This simple question is the foundation stone of a growing number of businesses. Why buy a car when you can rent one whenever you need to load up at IKEA? Why buy a bike when you can pick one up at a bike rack near your home and drop it off at another rack near your office? Why buy a DVD when you can watch it and return it in a convenient envelope?

Renting is not a new business. Hotel chains and car-hire firms have been around for ages. But for most of the past 50 years renters have been conceding ground to owners. Laundromats have been closing down as people buy their own washing machines. Home ownership was, until the financial crisis, rising nearly everywhere. Rental markets barely changed their business models for decades. All this is now changing dramatically, however, thanks to technology, austerity and greenery.

The internet makes it easy to compare prices. It also allows new ways of renting and sharing to thrive. For example, car-sharing is booming even as car sales languish. Zipcar, an American firm, has 400,000 members who pay an annual fee and can then rent cars by the hour. They log on to find out where the nearest Zipcar is parked, and return it to one of many scattered parking bays rather than a central flix, a film-rental firm, made $116m last year by making it easy to hire movies by mail. Governments are joining in: London is one of several cities that rent bikes to citizens who take the trouble to fill out a few forms.

Other pioneers of “collaborative consumption” help people sell their spare capacity in everything from parking spaces to energy. CouchSurfing connects people who have a spare sofa with travellers who wish to sleep on it, on the tacit understanding that the travellers will do the same for someone else in the network some day. Freecycle helps people give things away.

The moguls who run Zipcar may have different motives from the greens who run Freecycle, but they share the same faith: that access often matters more than ownership, and that technology will make sharing more and more efficient. The internet has always been good at connecting buyers and sellers; GPS devices and social networks are enhancing its power. Social networks are helping to lower one of the biggest barriers to “collaborative consumption”—trust. Couchsurfers can see at a keystroke what others in the network think of the stranger who wants to borrow their couch. If he is dirty or creepy, they need not let him in.

People are growing impatient with “idle capacity” (i. e. waste). The average American spends 18% of his income on running a car that is usually stationary. Half of American homes own an electric drill, but most people use it once and then forget it. If you are green or broke, as many people are these days, this seems wasteful.

Attitudes to conspicuous consumption are changing. Thorstein Veblen, who coined the term, argued that people like to display their status by owning lots of stuff. But many of today’s conspicuous consumers—particularly the young—achieve the same effect by virtual means. They boast about what they are doing (on Twitter), what they are reading (Shelfari), what they are interested in (Digg) and whom they know (Facebook). Collaborative consumption is an ideal signalling device for an economy based on electronic brands and ever-changing fashions.

There are obvious limitations to this new model. Few people, besides tramps and journalists, will want to wear recycled underpants. Returning Zipcars on time can be a hassle. But the sharing stampede is nevertheless gathering pace. Collective consumption is also disrupting established business models based on built-in obsolescence. The internet may be synonymous with novelty, but by encouraging people to reuse the same objects rather than buy new ones, it may revive the old virtue of building products that last.

Факультет государственного управления МГИМО МИД РФ

Экзамен по английскому языку (основному), IV курс

Направление – «ГМУ»

Уровень «Бакалавриат»

Билет №

Реферативное изложение на английском языке аутентичного текста  общеэкономической направленности. Беседа по проблематике текста  объемом 3250-3300п. зн. Время подготовки – 20 минут. Высказывание на английском языке на предложенную профессиональную тему  (2 минуты). Перевод с листа на русский язык предложений по языку профессии. Объем 400 – 600 п. зн. Перевод с листа на английский язык предложений по языку профессии.  Объем 400 – 600 п. зн.

Образец предложений для двустороннего перевода с листа

Establishments in public sector typically are engaged in the organization and financing of the production of public goods and services, most of which are provided for free or at prices that are not economically significant.
Обычно выделяют четыре типа неэффективных ситуаций, свидетельствующих о "провалах" рынка: монополия, несовершенная (асимметричная) информация, внешние эффекты и общественные блага.
In addition to cost savings, companies can employ an outsourcing strategy to focus on core aspects of a business. Outsourcing noncore activities can improve efficiency, streamlining and productivity because another entity performs these smaller tasks better than the firm itself. Outsourcing is an effective cost-saving strategy when used properly. It is sometimes more affordable to purchase a good from companies with than it is to produce the good internally.
Преуспеть в бизнесе означает быть замеченным, но усердная работа делает вас невидимым. Больше всего руководителям высшего звена нравятся те менеджеры низшего звена, которые проявляют инициативу и первыми берутся за дело.

Текст для письменного перевода на русский язык

The government has little control over the money its own civil servants spend and is wasting billions every year by failing to negotiate the best contracts for phones, IT equipment and rent, according to the Topshop boss Sir Philip Green, who was brought in by ministers to assess efficiency in Whitehall.

If the government were a business, it would fail, according to Green, whose efficiency review reveals how the government is wasting money on empty buildings, lazy contracts and wasteful purchasing procedures. His report recommends a significant centralization of government procurement to drive down costs. It paints a picture of civil servants who lack the financial skills to negotiate the best contracts – and the will to save public money. Green recommends a massive centralization of government finances, with centralized procurement bodies, negotiators for big contracts and checks on all items of expenditure to authorize every penny spent.

The report identifies massive variation in procurement with one department paying Ј73 for a box of paper and another paying Ј8. The most expensive cup of coffee in a Whitehall canteen is Ј1.45 and the least is 90p. Whitehall also spends Ј21m a year on 105,000 mobile phones for its staff, 98% of which are with the same provider. But departments take out contract for the phones separately so despite collectively being one of the biggest customers, government fails to negotiate the price down properly.

Образец текста для реферирования общеэкономической направленности.

Объем -  3252 п. зн.

THE BUSINESS OF SHARING

WHY buy when you can rent? This simple question is the foundation stone of a growing number of businesses. Why buy a car when you can rent one whenever you need to load up at IKEA? Why buy a bike when you can pick one up at a bike rack near your home and drop it off at another rack near your office? Why buy a DVD when you can watch it and return it in a convenient envelope?

Renting is not a new business. Hotel chains and car-hire firms have been around for ages. But for most of the past 50 years renters have been conceding ground to owners. Laundromats have been closing down as people buy their own washing machines. Home ownership was, until the financial crisis, rising nearly everywhere. Rental markets barely changed their business models for decades. All this is now changing dramatically, however, thanks to technology, austerity and greenery.

The internet makes it easy to compare prices. It also allows new ways of renting and sharing to thrive. For example, car-sharing is booming even as car sales languish. Zipcar, an American firm, has 400,000 members who pay an annual fee and can then rent cars by the hour. They log on to find out where the nearest Zipcar is parked, and return it to one of many scattered parking bays rather than a central flix, a film-rental firm, made $116m last year by making it easy to hire movies by mail. Governments are joining in: London is one of several cities that rent bikes to citizens who take the trouble to fill out a few forms.

Other pioneers of “collaborative consumption” help people sell their spare capacity in everything from parking spaces to energy. CouchSurfing connects people who have a spare sofa with travellers who wish to sleep on it, on the tacit understanding that the travellers will do the same for someone else in the network some day. Freecycle helps people give things away.

The moguls who run Zipcar may have different motives from the greens who run Freecycle, but they share the same faith: that access often matters more than ownership, and that technology will make sharing more and more efficient. The internet has always been good at connecting buyers and sellers; GPS devices and social networks are enhancing its power. Social networks are helping to lower one of the biggest barriers to “collaborative consumption”—trust. Couchsurfers can see at a keystroke what others in the network think of the stranger who wants to borrow their couch. If he is dirty or creepy, they need not let him in.

People are growing impatient with “idle capacity” (i. e. waste). The average American spends 18% of his income on running a car that is usually stationary. Half of American homes own an electric drill, but most people use it once and then forget it. If you are green or broke, as many people are these days, this seems wasteful.

Attitudes to conspicuous consumption are changing. Thorstein Veblen, who coined the term, argued that people like to display their status by owning lots of stuff. But many of today’s conspicuous consumers—particularly the young—achieve the same effect by virtual means. They boast about what they are doing (on Twitter), what they are reading (Shelfari), what they are interested in (Digg) and whom they know (Facebook). Collaborative consumption is an ideal signalling device for an economy based on electronic brands and ever-changing fashions.

There are obvious limitations to this new model. Few people, besides tramps and journalists, will want to wear recycled underpants. Returning Zipcars on time can be a hassle. But the sharing stampede is nevertheless gathering pace. Collective consumption is also disrupting established business models based on built-in obsolescence. The internet may be synonymous with novelty, but by encouraging people to reuse the same objects rather than buy new ones, it may revive the old virtue of building products that last.