Evaluation schema
Over the last couple of years, I have used the following schema to assist decision making. As you see, it basically studies two things, contribution (point 1), and believablity (points 2-4). In additio, it poses a separae question about the quality of art work submitted (essentially, portfolio). Some professors do not follow this, some do.
Decision-making proceeds in two phases. If you fail in Q1, there is little hope with even the best of plans. If Q1 gets 4-5 points, they the rest ought to get on average at least 3 points. Technical problems can be fixed, if the idea is good; the other way round is far more difficult. Always keep in mind that we are takling about doctoral work: everything is evaluated against the best international standard. Being interesting is not enough; when you graduate, you ought to be the best in your field for a couple of years at minimum.
Additional criteris involve things like contradictory premises, contradictions in methodology, etc. These issues inevitably show up in evaluation.
Question |
Points 1-5 (5 best) |
Relevance. Is the topic important. For which field of design, and how? |
|
Plan: theory. Is theoretical background solid, and does the plan review literature enough? Is something missing? |
|
Plan: accuracy. Is the plan accurate enough so that you can evaluate it? |
|
Plan: execution. Is the plan realistic? Scheduling, tasks, the order of tasks, the applicant’s background. (DA requires about 4 years of full-time work) |
|
Art, if applicable. Is the artistic quality of the plan and artwork high enough? (If there is an artistic component, it has to be good!) |
|
Sum |
= |
Free field for other comments: |
|