Peer Assessment of Student #3 Peer Assessment of Student #3


Category Student 1 Student 2 Student 4 Student 5 Average
Topic & Paper Selection (0-15) 14 15 - 15 14.7
Synopsis & Identification of Specific Problem (0-15) 15 12 13.7 14
Computational Section (0-10) 10 10 - 9 9.6
Format, Number and Types of Questions (0-10) 10 9 - 10 9.6
Quality of the Questions (0-20) 20 20 - 18 19.3
Presentation & Defense (0-20) 20 20 - 20 20
Overall Impression (0-10) 10 10 - 9 9.6
TOTAL 99 96 - 95 96.7




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

(B)	Evaluated Unit:	Susan Lopez
"Comparing the stabilities of [16]- and [14]-ketonands and starands: and
ab initio study"

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1)	Topic and Paper Selection: 14 points (out of 15)
Good topic, good journal, maybe a full paper instead of a communication
would have been better.

(2)	Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem: 15 (out of 15)
Well-defined problem, sufficient background given to understand the paper,
all of the important points are touched on.

(3)	Computational Section: 10 points (out of 10)

(4)	Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 points (out of 10)
Good representation of different types of questions.

(5)	Quality of Questions: 20 points (out of 20)
I liked that the reader is not only asked to provide information, but also
challenged as to why they answered the way they did.

(6)	Presentation and Defense: 20 points (out of 20)
	Excellent!

(7)	Overall Impression: 10 points (out of 10)


TOTAL		99 (out of 100)




Evaluation by Student #2
(A) Evaluating Unit: Sundeep Rayat

(B) Evaluation of Unit: Susan Lopez

(C) Response to various Evaluation Categories

(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15 points
	Good example involving computational chemistry

(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12 ponits
	A bit too brief.

(3) Computational Section:10 points
	Well summarized.

(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions:9 points
		Ouestions 4 and 5 contained too many sub-questions.

(5) Quality of Questions: 20 points
	All the questions were good.

(6) Presentation & Defense: 20 points
	Nice Job.

(7) Overall Impression: 10 points
	Well-done

Total points: 96/100


Evaluation by Student #4
NO REVIEW RECEIVED.  STUDENT WAS NOT PRSENT AT DEFENSE.



Evaluation by Student #5
(A) #5 Wu Zhengyu
(B) #3 Susan

(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: 14
      The synopsis is understandable. 

   3. Computational section: 9
      The computational method is well summerized.
 
   4. Format, Number and Types of Questions : 10
      The questions aer well organized and covered three categories. 
 
   5. Quality of the Questions : 18
 
   6. Presentation & defense : 20
      The presentation is very good.

   7. Overall impression : 9
      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 minor adjustments.