Peer Assessment of Student #2 Peer Assessment of Student #2


Category Student 1 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Average
Topic & Paper Selection (0-15) 15 15 15 15 15
Synopsis & Identification of Specific Problem (0-15) 13 14 15 13 13.75
Computational Section (0-10) 9 10 10 7 9
Format, Number and Types of Questions (0-10) 10 9 10 10 9.75
Quality of the Questions (0-20) 20 19 20 15 17.75
Presentation & Defense (0-20) 19 19 20 15 18.25
Overall Impression (0-10) 10 10 10 8 9.5
TOTAL 96 96 100 83 94




Evaluation by Student #1
(A)	Evaluating Unit: Nancy Vosnidou

(B)	Evaluated Unit:	Sundeep Rayat
"Insight into the mechanism of addition of olefins to ortho-CH bond of
aromatic ketones in the presence of ruthenium catalysts using density
functional theory" 

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1)	Topic and Paper Selection: 15 points (out of 15)
Recent publication in an excellent journal.  Good computational methods.
I liked that they compared different basis set results.

(2)	Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem: 13 points (out of 15)
I felt the synopsis was a bit too brief, and only touched on what I
thought was an important finding in the paper, that the Ruthenium is
5-coordinated in the intermediate structure.  The penta-coordination means
that one coordination site is vacant in the 5d6 electron structure, and
this is what participates in the agostic interaction with the ortho-CH
bond.

(3)	Computational Section: 9 points (out of 10)
Good summary of the basis sets.  The descriptions of the pathways and
schemes might have been more logical in the introduction section. I would
not have scanned in Figure 1 and Scheme 1 b/c they do not print out
legibly after scanning. It might have been better to just refer the reader
to those in the paper.

(4)	Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 points (out of 10)
I think the questions were appropriate and covered a variety of reasoning
levels.

(5)	Quality of Questions:  20 points (out of 20)
I liked that the questions centered around the most important reaction
described in the paper, the formation of #3 from #2, via transition state
TS1.  It really reinforced the important concepts in the paper and didn’t
stray off into not-so-relevant conclusions.

(6)	Presentation and Defense: 19 points (out of 20)
Sundeep definitely knew what she was talking about, but I felt the
presentation could have been a little more organized…I was confused by the
corrections on the overheads.

(7)	Overall Impression:10 points (out of 10)
I think this is a great example of how different theoretical levels can
give different results in terms of energy optimization of a reaction.  It
would be beneficial to have other students work this problem set because
it has an exercise in PES, makes the student think about the important
structural changes during a reaction, and identifies why one basis set
provides better energy than another.  It incorporates several things that
we’ve learned so far.

TOTAL	96	(out of 100)




Evaluation by Student #3

(A) Susan Lopez
(B) Sundeep Rayat
(C) Response
1. Topic and Paper Selection: 15
The paper is from 1999, and describes a very important computational
method, DFT. 

2. Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 14
The synopsis is brief and to the point, luckily this topic is not that
difficult to grasp for an inorganic chemist. This seems like a legitimate
problem worthy of being looked into. 

3. Computational Section: 10
The methods are well summarized, and sufficient data is given. All the
schemes were well scanned in. The picture is not very clear, but that is
mostly an error on the part of the authors.
 
4. Format, Number, and Types of Questions: 9
There are six questions that cover at least three categories. The page
limitation went a bit over but mostly I think it was because of the web
formatting. 

5. Quality of the Questions: 19
The questions are brief, but address central issues. They deal with
specific things that we went over in class, which was a nice review. They
would definitely be doable in a short amount of time. 
 
6. Presentation and Defense: 19
The presenter was well organized and looked as though she had a command of
the subject. She did not work from notes but rather from memory. The
overheads were clear, and I understood her perfectly. She went over by a
bit but this was mostly because of interruptions from the class asking her
questions.
 
7. Overall Impression: 10
This would be a very good problem set for a class. It does not deal with
concepts that are way beyond the reach of an introductory computational
class. The only limitation in this case is the fact that we have not
learned the method yet, but the majority of the problem set does not deal
with this. 
 


Evaluation by Student #4


Dr. Glaser, 
 
I just went over all the projects and evaluations and I found out that
while doing those at home, I must have lost Sundeep's second page, with
the scanned data in it.
So in that case, actually, Sundeep should have got perfect score from me
100 points, having maximum for computational part also. I would appreciate
it if it could be changed, I could also send another copy of my corrected
e-mail.
This was really my fault to miss all the presentation of data in her
synopsis.

Iiris.

-----
Peer evaluation of Sundeep by Iiris


(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15 Points (0-15)

(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 15 Points (0-15)

(3) Computational Section: 7 Points (0-10)
	There was no sign of data or what kind of values were
	calculated.

(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)

(5) Quality of the Questions: 20 Points (0-20)

(6) Presentation & Defense: 20 Points (0-20)

(7) Overall Impression. 10 Points (0-10)



Evaluation by Student #5

(A) #5 Wu Zhengyu
(B) #2 Sundeep

(C)
   1. Topic and Paper Selection:15
      The selected problem meets the required critiria. The computational
      method is useful and the paper is published in a top journal.

   2. Synopsis and identification of the problem: 13
      The synopsis is understandable. Maybe a little bit lack of
      explanation.

   3. Computational section: 7
      One important part of the paper is to treat different part of the
      complex with different basis sets. I do not think the details of how 
      the authors did this part was well explained. Other things are good.
 
   4. Format, Number and Types of Questions : 10
      The questions aer well organized and covered three categories. 
 
   5. Quality of the Questions : 15
      I think Q5 is not asked clearly enough. Q4 is not very important
      because it is a general way to draw PES. There is nothing new in
      this paper about the QES. Q6 has the same problem.
 
   6. Presentation & defense : 15
      Sandeep seemed a little bit nervous in the presentation. I think she 
      should practise her presetatin skills a little bit more.

   7. Overall impression : 8
      It is obvious that the content has been well studied and carefully 
      organized. I think if I want to use it as an assignment set in the   
      I would make some adjustments.