Peer Assessment of Student #1 Peer Assessment of Student #1


Category Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Average
Context Definition & Selection (0-15) 15 15 - 13 14.3
Problem Definition & Selection (0-15) 15 14 - 12 13.7
Choice of Methodology (0-15) 15 15 - 7 12.3
Scope of Project (0-15) 12 14 - 10 12
Interpretation (0-15) 13 14 - 10 12.3
Facilities and Feasibility (0-5) 5 5 - 5 5
Timeline (0-5) 4 5 - 3 4
Pros and Cons (0-15) 15 15 - 12 14
TOTAL 94 97 - 72 88




Evaluation by Student #2
X-Sender: c725567@pop.missouri.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:28:29 -0500
To: "Dr. Rainer Glaser" 
From: Sundeep Rayat 
Subject: Evaluation:NANCY

(A) Evaluating Unit: Sundeep Rayat

(B) Evaluation of Unit: Nancy Vosnidou

(C) Response to various Evaluation Categories

(1) Context Definition and Selection: 15 points
	A very interesting problem to study.

(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 15 points
	The goal of the proposal has been clearly defined.

(3) Choice of Methodology: 15 points
	Good choice of the methods. Although, you might think of
considering solvation(SCRF) with water molecules in the later part of your
study.

(4) Scope of Project:12 points
	It is very important in your study to look at the molecular
orbitals. It is always  interesting and ofcourse, important to know what
orbitals of the metal are involved in binding to the ligand. So a
molecular
orbital output will be very valuable in your case. You should also look at
the charge distribution after complexation.


(5) Interpretation:13 points
	One of the goal is to find out,"Why the seven coordination is
preferred in case of Calcium and not in other metals of the group". I
guess, that is reason why you want to do these studies with magnesium and
strontium as well. It is not clear as how the energy calculations "alone"
will provide answer to this question.

(6) Facilities and feasibilities: 5 points

(7) Timeline: 4 points

(8) Pros & Cons:The verdict. 15 points

Total Points: 94 points

#################################################################
#Sundeep Rayat           #               125 Chemistry Building #
#Department of Chemistry #            lab phone:  (573)882-4839 #

#University of Missouri  #                  fax:  (573)882-2754 #
#Columbia, Missouri      # e-mails: sre05@mizzou.edu            #
#65211				sundeep@venus.chem.missouri.edu #
#			 #	     srayat@hotmail.com		#

#                        #     http://www.missouri.edu/~c725567 #
#################################################################


Evaluation by Student #3
Nancy Vosnidou

1.Context Definition and Selection: 15
problem was clearly defined and very thorough I might add. Topic is pretty
interesting.
 
2. Problem Definition and Selection: 14
I am not sure if this study will resolve the dilemma of the introduction
but seems a step in the right direction.
 
3. Choice of Methodology:15
Methodology was clearly addressed. Not sure about the limitations.

4. Scope of Project: 13
Perhaps the author would benefit from a smaller number of
variables/calculations to run, and instead a more in depth analysis of
these. As it stands it is way too long and complicated.

5. Interpretation:14
The data derived from these computations will be very complicated to
explain in terms of what they mean for the entire system.
 
6. Facilities and feasiblity:5

7. Timeline:5

8. Pros & Cons: 15
Totally doable, merely cutting some of the larger systems out should be
enough.


 


Evaluation by Student #4
NOT PARTICIPATING IN PROJECT #2


Evaluation by Student #5
Student 4 Wu Zhengyu

Student 1 Nancy

(1) Context Definition and Selection:13

(2) Problem Definition and Selection:12

(3) Choice of Methodology: 7

The choice of RHF should be reconsidered. For a large amount of
calculation, time is an important issue. It will take a long time if you
use RHF for the large complex system with twenty or more heavy atoms. MP2
should not be a choice. And again, considering the time, you should chosee
one method. The choice of three methods(RHF, MP2, DFT) are not feasible
for the project.

(4) Scope of Project: 10

According to the peer review instruction, this project seems falls into
"to know everything about everything" --- you want to optimize every
possible stucture and comformation of each complex. It would be better if
you could make some choices out of all the possiblities and then start
calculating.

(5) Interpretation: 10

This part is not discussed much. The diffenrence between the calculated
systme (ideal) and real system is not stated. The amount of data seems too
large to handle. There should be some simplification so that the data can
be really analyzed with a reasonable effort.

(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 5

(7) Timeline: 3

The proposed time seems not enough to finish this project.


Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:33:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Zhengyu Wu 
X-Sender: zw46c@sp2n3.missouri.edu
Reply-To: zw46c@mizzou.edu
To: glaserr@missouri.edu
Subject: Peer Evaluation of Student 1 by Student 5 
MIME-Version: 1.0

Student 5 Wu Zhengyu

Student 1 Nancy Vosnidou

One more comment:

(8) Pros & Cons: 12 points

I would rank this proposal as top 30%. The topic is interesting. Maybe it
needs to be organized better.