Commit 7f919169 authored by Michael Kohlhase's avatar Michael Kohlhase
Browse files

these should not be leaked

parent 153493e3
\documentclass[paper=A4]{scrartcl}
\usepackage{url}
\titlehead{School of Engineering and Science \hfill \today\\ Jacobs University Bremen}
\subject{\Large{Guided Research Andrei Aiordachioaie\\[2ex] }}
\title{\large{\it Christine M\"uller}\\[.7ex] \small\url{c.mueller@jacobs-university.de}}
\date{}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section*{Proposal Grade: $15\%$ of the total grade}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{overall grade is $2.0$}
\item \textbf{substance:} This is less then Andrei is able to do, it is hard to grasp what his actually task is; the ideas at the end seem interesting, maybe they should have been the focus of his research proposal; It was too less text, too abstract, and too less details considering the numbers of meetings and revision we had.
\item \textbf{structure:} The timeplan does not corresspond to the job description; the concrete problem and proposed solutions are not well-presented.
\item \textbf{feedback:} We expect more ellaboration on the subject and some more impressing extensions of panta rhei. I think we need to go away from improving the student stystem panta rhei start looking at the research project panta rhei, in which we implement nice features to test our intuitions on e.g.\ allowing users to interact with semantically markup content. So rather see panta rhei as a proof-of-concept prototype than an eLearning system. Andrei needs to spend more time on his proposal, I need to find out how many other tasks he has beside the proposal, but the current amount of time is not sufficient.
\item \textbf{Andrei's expectations:} Well-structured, but to little research, to little content.
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
\ No newline at end of file
name proposal thesis
agapie_elena ? 1.33
beykov_zdravko 1.67 3.67
holsten_soenke (math) ? 2
ionita_andrei 2
sojakova_kristina (math) 1.33 1
name proposal thesis
giceva_jana 1,33 1,00
iacob_alin (math) 2 (3 due to late submission) not submitted
iacob_alin (CS) 5 (not submitted) 2,33
modi_ankur 1,67 1,67
ginev_deyan 1,33? 1,67
name proposal thesis
david_catalin 1,00 1,67
dumbrava_stefania (math) 1,00, talk 2,00, total 1,33 1,00
iancu_mihnea 1,33 1,00
misev_dimitar 2,33 1,33
uecker_jacob ??? 1,33
\ No newline at end of file
proposal thesis
Anca 1.00
Mihai 1.67
Lucian 3.33
Mihaela 1.67
Simion did not materialize
Vladimir CS: 1.33, Math: 1.33, CS: 1.67, Math: 2.00
\ No newline at end of file
proposal thesis
Maria Alecu 1,00 1,67
Iulia Ignatov 1,67 1,67
\ No newline at end of file
Proposal: well-written, good SoA, Hyps not very deep, but OK. 1.7
Thesis: 2.7
a) new parts (Intro, etc, verbatim copies of Proposal -> OK) relatively sloppy
b) data collection good
c) evaluation disapponing (quality of writeup and argumentation)
d) conclusions and interpretation not/only partially scientifically justified.
Talk: 3.0
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment