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


Category Student 1 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Average
Context Definition & Selection (0-15) 15 15 - 15 15
Problem Definition & Selection (0-15) 15 15 - 14 14.7
Choice of Methodology (0-15) 15 13 - 13 14
Scope of Project (0-15) 14 15 - 14 14.3
Interpretation (0-15) 10 15 - 14 13
Facilities and Feasibility (0-5) 5 5 - 5 5
Timeline (0-5) 4 5 - 4 4.3
Pros and Cons (0-15) 14 15 - 12 14
TOTAL 92 98 - 91 94




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

(B) Evaluated Unit: Sundeep Rayat 

(C) Evaluation

(1) Context Definition and Selection	15 (out of 15)
Good background information, problem has relevance beyond theoretical
considerations.

(2) Problem Definition and Selection	15 (out of 15)
The problem is clearly defined, and Sundeep has obviously put a lot of
thought into how to approach it.  Objectives are straightforward, and a
statement is given as to why ab initio methods are to be used.

(3) Choice of Methodology		15 (out of 15)
Good description of which HF level is used and why.

(4) Scope of Project			14 (out of 15)
I can't be too critical of the large scope as we all have the same
problem! It is a "structure and energy" analysis which is perfectly
appropriate for determining which tautomerization products are likely.

(5) Interpretation			10 (out of 15)
I would have liked a separate section on data analysis and interpretation,
instead of being lumped in with the project scope.  Although the problem
and methods are very well defined, I think it needs a little more thought
on what kinds of data are expected, and what the results would mean.

(6) Facilities and Feasibility		5 (out of 5)

(7) Timeline				4 (out of 5)
The time for computation is accounted for, but not for analysis and
review.

(8) Pros and Cons			14 (out of 15)


TOTAL	92/100
 


Evaluation by Student #3
Sundeep Rayat

1.Context Definition and Selection: 15
Clearly defined problem and complete. Topic is interesting , I'm not
exactly sure if timely?

2. Problem Definition and Selection: 15
Solution is to a specific goal, and was clearly stated. Theory is the only
way to go here 

3. Choice of Methodology: 13
Method is appropriate. Did not address using other electron correlation
methods.

4. Scope of Project: 15
I believe that with the proposal Sundeep will have the answers she is
looking for. It helps provide answers to a 'bigger picture'

5. Interpretation: 15
This seems like it will be pretty straightforward without any major
obstacles.

6. Facilities and feasibility: 15
Very feasible study

7. Timeline:5
Good estimates

8. Pros & Cons:15
Proposal has promise and seems to have relevance and a place in Sundeep's
ongoing research. We should all be so lucky!


 


Evaluation by Student #4
NOT PARTICIPATING IN PROJECT #2


Evaluation by Student #5
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:19:31 -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 2 by Student 4
MIME-Version: 1.0

Student 4 Wu Zhengyu

Student 2 Sundeep Rayat

(1) Context Definition and Selection: 15 points

The general problem was defined clearly. THe topic is interesting.

(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 14 points

The problem was isolated clearly. There is a clear statement about why to
choose the theory and computations.

(3) Choice of Methodology: 13 points

The method is supposed to give appropriate results. Maybe you can discuss
the possibility of some other methods.

(4) Scope of Project: 14 points

The project is right oriented and the result should tell us the most
possible reaction.

(5) Interpretation: 14 points

The interpretation can lead to the right place where we want to go.

(6) Facilites and Feasibility: 15 points

THe project can be done feasibly.

(7) Timeline: 4 points

Maybe a long time is needed.

(8) Pros & Cons: 12 points

I would rank this proposal as top 30%. It would be better if there is more
creativity.

91 points