tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-135927816967257041.post7644685445295609120..comments2024-03-19T04:13:40.470-07:00Comments on Tao Xie's Research & Advising Blog: Promoting Research Group Spirit and Peer Student SupportTao Xiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11364035215805367784noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-135927816967257041.post-39964310052609707272013-08-30T06:25:53.470-07:002013-08-30T06:25:53.470-07:00This is gorgeous!This is gorgeous!Hunghttp://bestrecumbentexercisebikes.us/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-135927816967257041.post-58546352853650153432008-12-27T09:37:00.001-08:002008-12-27T09:37:00.001-08:00Note that in practice we don't rank all students (...Note that in practice we don't rank all students (giving scores to each student) but asking students to vote the best two in their opinion.<BR/><BR/>Indeed some research topics can take a while to generate results/papers. Students and I vote based on our overall impression, not solely based on results/papers. It is possible that a student with a single important, high-impact paper could win over another student with several ok papers.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, it may have side effect like frustrating those students who cannot get awarded. But I think these students shall turn the frustration into incentive for doing better and making greater progress. For these students, living in their comfort zone without incentive wouldn't be a better alternative.Tao Xiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364035215805367784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-135927816967257041.post-17723883542131876612008-12-27T09:37:00.000-08:002008-12-27T09:37:00.000-08:00There is a possible solution for Yingfei's concern...There is a possible solution for Yingfei's concern. Assume there are 10 students in a group. After collecting the votes, the counting should be done privately by the advisor, and at the end, only the top 2 ranks should be announced instead of disclosing all the vote counts and all the ranks (1-10) in public among students. That way, everyone can be motivated by the top two performers. Other 8 students wont know their exact rank, but will still be motivated to achieve the top 2 spots next semester. If all ranks are disclosed, it might be a bit frustrating for the 10th ranker!<BR/><BR/>A different concern exists however. We have assumed there are 10 students. A perfect ranking algorithm exists to accurately rank the students - "only-advisor-votes-and-students-wont"! this algorithm is perfect because advisor knows the performance of each and every student and can easily rank the students precisely. Student voting (even with an extra vote for the advisor) may not always yield a perfect ranking because as a student one might not exactly know how much effort other students have put the previous semester. So, what are the advantages of student voting methodology (an approximate algorithm), when a perfect algorithm (advisor voting) already exists? Transparency cannot be an advantage because we all trust our advisor anyways!<BR/><BR/>Mithun AcharyaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-135927816967257041.post-18265220317308999202008-12-27T09:36:00.000-08:002008-12-27T09:36:00.000-08:00I do not think Mechanism 2 is a good idea. For one...I do not think Mechanism 2 is a good idea. For one thing, if the research group is not very large, everyone can see each other's progress and it should be clear to everyone that who is the best. For another, there are many issues affecting research. Having no result does not mean the student was not working hard. Ranking students will frustrate the low-ranked students, who probably have already been frustrated for producing no result.<BR/><BR/>Yingfei XiongAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com