Peer Assessment of Student #5 Peer Assessment of Student #5


Category Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Average
Context Definition & Selection (0-15) 15 15 15 - 15
Problem Definition & Selection (0-15) 5 8 12 - 8.3
Choice of Methodology (0-15) 10 15 15 - 13.3
Scope of Project (0-15) 10 15 13 - 12.7
Interpretation (0-15) 14 15 14 - 14.3
Facilities and Feasibility (0-5) 5 5 5 - 5
Timeline (0-5) 5 3 5 - 4
Pros and Cons (0-15) 10 10 14 - 11.3
TOTAL 78 86 93 - 86




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

(B) Evaluated Unit: Martin Wu

(C) Evaluation

(1) Context Definition and Selection	 15 (out of 15)
Good background and explanation why experimental methods are not
appropriate.

(2) Problem Definition and Selection	5 (out of 15)
The problem is clearly defined, but no model system is proposed.  What is
the hypothesis to be tested?

(3) Choice of Methodology		 14 (out of 15)
Semi-empirical methods seem appropriate. What do each of the tensor
components of your hyperpolarizability factor represent (physical meaning
of the ranks)? How many will you include (i.e. how far will you extend the
series of Eqn  1? how do additional terms affect computation time?) Give
some explanation of your equations and components.

(4) Scope of Project			10 (out of 15)
Since no model system is proposed, I cannot comment on the scope. It is
indicated that systems with 12-35 heavy atoms will be assessed, but I have
no idea what kinds, and what effects different atoms could have on
hyperpolarizability.

(5) Interpretation			14 (out of 15)
It seems that some good thought has been given to the possible outcomes
and their meanings, in terms of the general problem. There needs to be a
little more information about specific systems.

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

(7) Timeline				5 (out of 5)

(8) Pros and Cons			10 (out of 15)
Seems like a good project, but more thought is needed on the specifics.

TOTAL	78/100
 


Evaluation by Student #2
X-Sender: c725567@pop.missouri.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:58:27 -0500
To: "Dr. Rainer Glaser" 
From: Sundeep Rayat 
Subject: Evalution:MARTIN

(A) Evaluating Unit: Sundeep Rayat

(B) Evaluation of Unit: Martin Wu

(C) Response to various Evaluation Categories

(1) Context Definition and Selection: 15 points

(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 8 points
	What kind of conjugated molecules you want to look at? And what
donar and acceptor groups you want to choose in order to make your
approach
novel? Synthesizing NLO molecules with high beta values  based on
theoretical calculations is really exciting. As you said, literature
provides examples of molecules with high beta values as good NLO
materials.
So actually the Novelity of your proposal lies in proposing potential NLO
materials and then running hyperpolarizability calculations on those
molecules.SO it was essential to propose some novel organic molecules that
you want to study, specifically.

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

(4) Scope of Project:15 points


(5) Interpretation:15 points


(6) Facilities and feasibilities: 5 points

(7) Timeline: 3 points.
	Depends upon how many molecules you want to study


(8) Pros & Cons:The verdict. 10 points

Total Points: 86 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 #3
Martin

1.Context Definition and Selection:15
very good section

2. Problem Definition and Selection: 12
the problem definition is clear however the author does not really go into
how this study will provide the general solution to the problem at hand. 

3. Choice of Methodology: 15
methods are very appropriate

4. Scope of Project:13
No specific systems were defined so that one could deem this proposal
plausible or not. It seems to be more of survey, without enough ‘proof’
that the results obtained will actually further the goal of making NLO
materials.

5. Interpretation: 14
again it is unclear as to what results will come of this. It seems that
there are many obstacles to overcome in this study, even if the molecules
are found to have promise the way that they will actually be isolated
(crystal/polymer) is still a major hurdle…one that hundred of research
groups seem to be focussed on. 

6. Facilities and feasiblity:5

7. Timeline:5

8. Pros & Cons:14
as far as the computational study…I believe that this will most definitely
be a viable exploit, yet in terms of the actual promise of the
project...this will need some more ‘tweaking’.


 


Evaluation by Student #4
NOT PARTICIPATING IN PROJECT #2