these should not be leaked

2008/aiordachioaie_andrei/admin/grade.tex

-\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

2008/grades.txt

-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

2009/grades.txt

-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

2010/grades.txt

-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

2011/grades.txt

-		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

2012/grades.txt

-		proposal	thesis
-Maria Alecu	1,00		1,67
-Iulia Ignatov	1,67		1,67
\ No newline at end of file

2012/guseva_ana/admin/grades.txt

-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