Národohospodářská fakulta Vysoké školy ekonomické v Praze, nám. Winstona Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3 tel.: +420 224 095 521, fax: +420 224 221 718, URL: http://nf.vse.cz
REVIEW OF THE DIPLOMA THESIS OPPONENT
Student’s name and surname:Viktória Soročinová ...
Thesis title: Analysis of the (non-)Functioning American Banking System in the 1920s ...
Thesis opponent: Ing. Petr Chalupecký...
1 2 3 4
Assessment of the main aspects of the thesis:
1 Structure of the thesis (logical and systematic construction) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 2 Goal of the thesis (unambiguity of formulation, adequacy) ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
3 Quality of the theoretical part ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
4 Quality of the application/analytical/empirical part ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 5 Adequacy of the methods to the goal of the thesis ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
6 Sources (topicality, relevance, frequency) ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
7 Quality of conclusions, fulfillment of the goal of the thesis ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 8 Formal aspects (formatting, stylistics, references) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Verbal assessment (describe the strongest and weakest aspects of the thesis; especially in case of a low assessment 3-4, concrete reproaches need to be expressed):
First of all, I would appreciate focus on banking sector throughout the work. It contributes to a consistency of the thesis, and it opens a space for a profound analysis of the topics. On the other side the student did not forget to mention any of important factors relating the topics. I specially highlight a connection Another strong aspect of the thesis is to my opinion the variety of used resources. Mrs. Soročinová applies the most recent knowledge. The aim and task of the thesis is clearly set in a form hypothesis and several relating questions to answer. The hypothesis is feasible to prove with the supposed knowledge and capabilities of a student and it is appropriate to chosen topics.
The resulting work however suffers several weaknesses. The most important one is very low level of analysis. The student relayed mostly on the research done by others and her own contribution is insufficient. It is expressed in a structure of the thesis and in methods used as well. Concerning structure, I miss real theoretical part where methods or chosen models to analyze the development of banking sector are described. It would enable to elaborate the analysis with greater depth than by using descriptive method mostly. As a result, it is hard do distinct theoretical and practical part of the thesis. On the other hand, there are several parts that could be shortened, for example a description of banking development since the late 18th century on pages 27–29 of the thesis. Sometimes the author repeats herself so better revision of the work was needed.
I would like to highlight a style the thesis is written in. The work is easy to read unless it loses its scientific character. Also, the English is good despite it is not student’s mother tongue.
Another my rebuke aims at a form of citing external sources. It concerns namely citing sources of data used in graphs where Mrs. Soročinová do not cite precisely.
Complex assessment (it is necessary to state whether the thesis complies with the Methodological guidelines of the Faculty of Economics, University of Economics, Prague as concerns the quality of the content, the extent and formal requirements and whether the thesis is being recommended to the defense or not; the thesis can also be nominated to a special award, etc. ):
The thesis hardly satisfies all requirements of the Faculty of Economics on this type of thesis.
Despite my reservations I would like to give Mrs. Soročinová an opportunity to defend her thesis before exam commission.
Questions to the defense:
1. Did You came across at the average rate of profit of the US banking sector? And if You did, how it was developing through the 1920s?
2. Did any rules on credit provided exist during the 1920s and in a case they existed, which ones?
Suggested grade: good/failed
Date: 02.06.2021 ...
Thesis opponent’s signature Instructions to the reviewer: The reviewer needs to fill in the verbal assessment which is adequately informative with respect to the purpose of the defense.
Assessment scale: 1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = good, 4 = failed.
