Peer Assessment of Student #5
Peer Assessment of Student #5
|Topic & Paper Selection
|Synopsis & Identification of
Specific Problem (0-15)
|Computational Section (0-10)
|Format, Number and Types of Questions
|Quality of the Questions (0-20)
|Presentation & Defense (0-20)
|Overall Impression (0-10)
Evaluation by Student #1
(A) Evaluating Unit: Nancy Vosnidou
(B) Evaluated Unit: Martin Wu
"Using ab-initio and DFT calculations to study the electrocyclization of
(Z)-Hexa-1,3,5-triene and its heterosubstituted analogues"
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15 points (out of 15)
Good paper, interesting topic.
(2) Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem: 10 (out of 15)
The problem was identified, but there wasn't really a synopsis of the
paper given. I would have liked a more comprehensive summary.
(3) Computational Section: 5 points (out of 10)
This section was just a reproduction of some tables in the paper, not
really a discussion of the method or why each computation was used.
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 points (out of 10)
There were only four questions and the assignment asked for five. Also,
only three of the reasoning levels were represented.
(5) Quality of Questions: 20 points (out of 20)
Very good questions, requiring the reader to really think about
the results of the paper.
(6) Presentation and Defense: 10 points (out of 20)
This was obviously thrown together at the last minute, not well-prepared.
However, he did give a very good impromptu discussion at the chalk board.
(7) Overall Impression: 5 points (out of 10)
It was an interesting topic and exemplifies good computational methods.
However, I felt that little effort went into preparing this project so it
would require more work before another student could benefit from it.
TOTAL 73 (out of 100)
Evaluation by Student #2
(A) Evaluating Unit: Sundeep Rayat
(B) Evaluation of Unit:Martin Wu
(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
(3) Computational Section:8 points
A little discussion of the computational methods would have been
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions:9 points
Only four questions and each of those have too many
(5) Quality of Questions: 20 points
All the questions were good.
(6) Presentation & Defense: 18 points
It would have been better with overheads. But overall the speaker
gave a good chalk-talk.
(7) Overall Impression: 10 points
Total points: 92/100
Evaluation by Student #3
(A) Susan Lopez
(B) Martin Wu
1. Topic and Paper Selection: 14
Good paper, good journal, and published within the last three years. The
only problem: too long.
2. Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 13
The synopsis is rather brief. I have to bones to pick with the synopsis:
First if you are going to mention where the author is from give the
university or institution not just that he is ‘from Spain’…it really
bothers me when people do this in there presentations and even more so in
writing. Second please do a spell and/or grammar check, I know it can be
difficult when you have many chemical compounds, but it is worth it for
the sake of the reader.
3. Computational Section: 10
The data is well summarized. I like the idea of putting it all in tables.
4. Format, Number, and Types of Questions: 6
There are only 4 questions. The questions do cover three areas. The page
limitations are met.
5. Quality of the Questions: 19
The questions are straight forward and cover things that we have talked
about in class. They are clear and understandable.
6. Presentation and Defense: 13
The presenter looked like he knew what he was talking about but was not
very organized. Doing a chalk talk takes about twice as long as an
overhead talk especially when you have as many compounds as were in this
paper. It may have been a lot more helpful to the class if the compounds
had already been drawn out and then more of the time could have been
focused on more important things. The presenter did the talk mostly from
memory although they were looking at the paper. It was way too long, and
part of the problem is the fact that there were no notes. It seemed as if
the presenter took no time to sit down and organize his thoughts, and just
got up there and ‘winged it’. When you have complicated nomenclature and
many compounds the best route is to have overheads.
7. Overall Impression: 6
The problem set was comprehensible and would be suited for a computational
class. Since this ids the overall impression category I find a need to
express my overall impression of the handling of the assignment by the
presenter in this category. I feel that this problem set was not taken
very seriously by the presenter, while the rest of us had submitted our
assignments by Friday/Saturday morning at latest, it was Wednesday before
we got this one. This screwed up the entire process and royally pissed me
off since my plans for the weekend and following week revolved around this
assignment. I never got a chance to work the problem set before the
presentation. All I ask for is a little consideration next time. You know
we all have it tough and all have many tasks that we are constantly
juggling (research, classes, life) and if someone else is depending on
you, or is being influenced by the decisions that you make…It can
seriously piss them off.
Evaluation by Student #4
Peer evaluation of Martin 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)
The data was presented and scanned very well, but there was no
summary of the methods
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
The number of problems was 1 less than requested.
(5) Quality of the Questions: 20 Points (0-20)
(6) Presentation & Defense: 15 Points (0-20)
Presentation was a little long, maybe due to the absence of
overheads. It was easy to follow but seemed less organised
compared to others.
(7) Overall Impression. 6 Points (0-10)
I think that the paper was a little too advanced for the knowledge
we presently have about computational methods.