Peer Review of Razvan’s Formal Report Proposal

To: Razvan Nesiu

From: Ayazhan Makhambetova

Date: February 4^th, 2019

Subject: Peer Review of Formal Report Proposal

 

First Impression:

The proposal is well-organized, and it follows all the guidelines provided for this assignment. I personally encountered the problem you identified, and I cannot agree more with the importance of the issue. There are some minor corrections I would advice you to have a look at, but overall your proposal is well-written, relevant, and engaging.

 

Introduction:

The background of the problem was stated in a clear and detailed manner. You correctly pointed out the status of UBC as university, demonstrating the scope of the problem. Also, the brief overview for the technical interview parts you provided would be helpful for readers not familiar with the field.

 

Statement of Problem: 

Good overview of where student do well and poor in the interviews for computer science positions. The cause and effect relations help understand readers the importance of increasing the preparedness of students to the technical parts of the interview.

 

Proposed Solution: 

Provided 2 possible solutions to the problem.

One of the solutions is related to the CS Department, by proposing to create an additional course that trains students for technical interviews.  I had a question reading the possible solution stated above:

• Would you propose that course to be mandatory or elective? Why?

The second solution proposed is to create an AMS sponsored club that allows students practise their interview skills. Another question I had would be:

• Who in your opinion should student be practising with? Other students or a hired professional?

 

Scope: 

Questions are well stated and fully cover the scope of the future report. The questions provide a good coverage for the relevance of the possible solutions from the students’ perspective. Maybe you could also add the departments perspective, as the cost and effort needed to create such course or a club.

 

Methods: 

Methods provided seem to be good source for your research, particularly I liked your decision to interview both students and faculty members. My suggestion would be to consider similar practices from other universities and their success (or failure) rate to your research.

 

Qualifications:

You clearly stated your relation to the department and your own experience with technical interviews, which makes you qualified to write a report on this topic.

 

Conclusion:

Statement of the high rank that our university has definitely adds strength to your argument, by emphasizing the importance and urgency of the problem. The last sentence that goes over your solutions one more time was also a good idea, since it reminds the readers of it and leaves them with some thoughts.

 

Enclosure:

 Formal Report Proposal – Razvan Nesiu