BTM

200
MINI CASE ASSIGNMENT

















Kenza Debbarh (40171684)



















John Molson school of business
Concordia university

Dear professors Duberrie,
My name is John; I am your portfolio manager. I have been compiling and
deeply analyzing the raw data about the students’ results provided by your
university, UQAM, and came out with the following output. I have divided my
work into several steps. Let me explain them to you in order to carry out this
analysis.

1. Organize the students’ final grades in alphabetical order:

Colonne1 Colonne2 Colonne3 Colonne4 Colonne5 Colonne6

Student Assignments Mid-term Final exam
Last name First name
number (%) exam (%) (%)
Albert Clement 5678234 74 55 84
Brown John 3451237 88 72 85
Carter Alex 4567890 87 55 40
Dessousa Robert 3456789 55 78 62
Jung Ching 1234567 50 76 84
Kennedy Paul 5678901 63 78 51
Lennington Kerry 1123456 30 65 84
Loyd Ann 9012345 45 88 78
Marquis Eva 7890123 98 71 80
Nixon John 1234568 73 65 72
Savage Janice 2314678 54 59 55
Sevigny Peter 2345678 61 45 60
Smith Albert 8901234 100 85 92
Westbury Jack 6789012 78 74 76

Firstly, I organized the data so the student’s will be sorted in alphabetical order.
Thanks to the “Sort A to Z” tool, it was easier and faster.

2 Compute the weighted total for each student and generate the student’s
grade.

I compiled the “weighted Total (%)” simply by using this formula “=((D2*0.2)
+(E2*0.35) +(F2*0.45))” and as stated by the attached set of instructions, the
assignments, the mid-term and the final exam are worth 20%, 35% and 45%
respectively and by applying the above formula, I was able to find the weighted
total marks of all the students in terms of percentage which is also a great
indicator of students’ performance.
Colonne1 Colonne2 Colonne3 Colonne4 Colonne5 Colonne6 Colonne7 Colonne8
Mid-term
Student Assignments Final exam weighted Final
Last name First name exam
number (%) (%) total (%) grade
(%)
Albert Clement 5678234 74 55 84 71.85 B-
Brown John 3451237 88 72 85 81.05 A-
Carter Alex 4567890 87 55 40 54.65 F
Dessousa Robert 3456789 55 78 62 66.2 C
Jung Ching 1234567 50 76 84 74.4 B
Kennedy Paul 5678901 63 78 51 62.85 C
Lennington Kerry 1123456 30 65 84 66.55 C
Loyd Ann 9012345 45 88 78 74.9 B
Marquis Eva 7890123 98 71 80 80.45 A-
Nixon John 1234568 73 65 72 69.75 C
Savage Janice 2314678 54 59 55 56.2 F
Sevigny Peter 2345678 61 45 60 54.95 F
Smith Albert 8901234 100 85 92 91.15 A+
Westbury Jack 6789012 78 74 76 75.7 B

The next step towards the “final grade” was to use the “weighted total (%)” to
generate a formula giving the student’s grade and was as follows: =IF
(G2<60,"F”, IF (G2<70,"C”, IF (G2<77,"B”, IF (G2<80,"B+”, IF
(G2<85,"A-",""))))).
I dragged this equation from the first cell to the rest of the cell on the Excel
sheet, the same way I calculated the weighted total.

3. Statistical distribution of the student grades:

This pivot table helps me see how many A+ to F were in this class to show the
overall performance of the students. As you can see above, the pivot table gives
the number of students which is 14, and how many times has the same letter
grade been attributed.

Mean point (%)

72
71
70
69
68
0 1 2 3 4 5

I inserted a graphical representation of the class’ average (mean) points in terms

of percentage to assess the changing performance of the students during the
assignment, mid-term and final assessment periods.

Conclusion:

Note that the most common final grade is "C" grade, there is only one grade
"A+" and two grades of "A-" indicate that the performance of the class is very
poor. Three people who failed this course are also shown.
Some students really need to double their efforts to be able to pass the class.
Overall, the analysis shows that the performance of the course is very average,
Therefore, the following departments of UQAM University should find a way to
inspire their students to get better grades and pay more attention to homework
and the mid-term exam and not only the final exam.