dc66e42ec4
Categories now match folder names (15 canonical values). Types normalized to 25 canonical values per VAULT_MAP.md spec. Context-aware mapping: W-2s→tax-form, lease files→lease, vet records→vet, etc.
54 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
54 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: academic
|
|
category: academic
|
|
person: Yanxin Lu
|
|
date: 2018
|
|
source: defense_evaluation_guidelines.pdf
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Department of Computer Science
|
|
# Rice University
|
|
## Guidelines for Evaluating Ph.D. Thesis and Defense
|
|
|
|
### Problem statement
|
|
|
|
- **Excellent:** Compelling problem statement that demonstrates the challenge and utility of the work, as well as theoretical or practical applications
|
|
- **Satisfactory:** Problem is clearly stated; a case is made for utility, application
|
|
- **Unsatisfactory:** Problem is not clearly stated; little context or justification
|
|
|
|
### Impact of work
|
|
|
|
- **Excellent:** Groundbreaking work or a novel problem; a thesis that will change the literature
|
|
- **Satisfactory:** Solves an important or novel problem; quality of work merits publication in important venues
|
|
- **Unsatisfactory:** Obvious extension to the existing literature
|
|
|
|
### Technique
|
|
|
|
- **Excellent:** Develops new approach to solution or applies techniques that are novel to the area
|
|
- **Satisfactory:** Uses established techniques to solve novel problems
|
|
- **Unsatisfactory:** Uses techniques incorrectly or inappropriately
|
|
|
|
### Content of results
|
|
|
|
- **Excellent:** Computer Science content is substantial and correct
|
|
- **Satisfactory:** Content has acceptable depth and breadth & requires only minor corrections
|
|
- **Unsatisfactory:** Content is shallow and/or contains significant errors
|
|
|
|
### Thesis text
|
|
|
|
- **Excellent:** Well organized text, fluent prose, and few grammatical errors
|
|
- **Satisfactory:** Acceptable organization & text, limited grammatical errors
|
|
- **Unsatisfactory:** Poor organization, difficult prose, or numerous grammatical errors
|
|
|
|
### Oral Presentation
|
|
|
|
- **Excellent:** Engaging, polished presentation with well crafted visual aides that illustrate key results; includes a substantial conclusion
|
|
- **Satisfactory:** Professional presentation on a par with a solid conference talk; includes a coherent project narrative and conclusion
|
|
- **Unsatisfactory:** Too much or too little detail; unclear about project goals and direction; incoherent slides; candidate reads from slides
|
|
|
|
### Replies to questions
|
|
|
|
- **Excellent:** Complete answers that demonstrate a deep understanding of the discipline that extends beyond the thesis
|
|
- **Satisfactory:** Competent answers that illustrate a facility with the issues and techniques immediately relevant to the thesis
|
|
- **Unsatisfactory:** Answers reveal a limited comprehension of the work and its context
|