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


Category Student 1 Student 2 Student 4 Student 5 Average
Context Definition & Selection (0-15) 15 15 - 13 14.3
Problem Definition & Selection (0-15) 14 14 - 14 14
Choice of Methodology (0-15) 14 15 - 15 14.7
Scope of Project (0-15) 14 12 - 14 13.3
Interpretation (0-15) 12 15 - 15 14
Facilities and Feasibility (0-5) 5 5 - 5 5
Timeline (0-5) 4 4 - 4 4
Pros and Cons (0-15) 13 15 - 13 13.7
TOTAL 91 95 - 93 93




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

(B) Evaluated Unit: Susan Lopez

(C) Evaluation

(1) Context Definition and Selection	 15 (out of 15)
Excellent background.

(2) Problem Definition and Selection	14 (out of 15)

(3) Choice of Methodology		 14 (out of 15)
Good descriptions of the methods, but could have been a little clearer as
to what MP2 and RHF/6-31G* will tell you.

(4) Scope of Project			 14 (out of 15)
Maybe it would be better to start with a smaller model system and build
up.

(5) Interpretation			12 (out of 15)
I like how the theoretical results will be compared to experimental data.
What kinds of results do you expect? What will the data mean?

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

(7) Timeline				4 (out of 5)
Computation time is stated, but data analysis/interpretation time is not
included.

(8) Pros and Cons			13 (out of 15)
Susan's writing is a little hard to follow, because of the
"conversational" style…it needs a little more organization. Dividing the
proposed research into sub-sections would make it easier for the reader to
follow.  The project seems interesting, but I'm not clear as to why it is
important to study these extended solids.

TOTAL	91/100



 


Evaluation by Student #2
X-Sender: c725567@pop.missouri.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:28:56 -0500
To: "Dr. Rainer Glaser" 
From: Sundeep Rayat 
Subject: Evaluation: SUSAN

(A) Evaluating Unit: Sundeep Rayat

(B) Evaluation of Unit: Susan Lopez

(C) Response to various Evaluation Categories

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

(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 14 points
	 The first part of the goals and objectives was a bit confusing.
Problem is well sutied for the computational work.

(3) Choice of Methodology: 15 points
	Good choice of the methods.

(4) Scope of Project:12 points
	It would be a good idea, to  consider first  the Cu bound to
pyridine or Cyano (along with three other ligands chosen) and study its
bonding before considering the dimer.


(5) Interpretation:15 points

(6) Facilities and feasibilities: 5 points

(7) Timeline: 4 points

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

Total Points: 95 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 #4
NOT PARTICIPATING IN PROJECT #2


Evaluation by Student #5
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:30:41 -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 3 by Student 5
MIME-Version: 1.0

Student 5 Wu Zhengyu

Student 3 Susan Lopez

(1) Context Definition and Selection: 13 points

The general problem was defined clearly. However the topic is not very 
interesting to me. Maybe because I do not know much about Inorganic
devision.

(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: 15 points

The method is well studied before the determination. 

(4) Scope of Project: 14 points

THe study will get some good results.

(5) Interpretation: 15 points

The interpretation is good and logical.

(6) Facilites and Feasibility: 15 points

The project is feasible.

(7) Timeline: 4 points

Maybe a longer time is needed.

(8) Pros & Cons: 13 points

I would rank this proposal as top 20%. 

93 points