University: Mathematical and Computer Sciences Coursework

"A sophisticated and confident statistical study. The data used was interesting and gave two very key questions. The description of the statistical tests was accurate and the method was described well. The results were evaluated and the real-world result of what the author claimed was mentioned intelligently, and what could be done about it considered. The reason I am giving this four stars is that it is often hard to follow, through no fault of the author. Knowledge of the tests has been assumed and complex calculations merely referred to a computer program. This is not a criticism, it merely means that a reader could not gain a brilliant understanding through this essay alone. TSR User:DavyS"

"A very interesting read on crime statistics, but the disappointing shortness of the article means that one is left with a very, very surface level description of the system. The references are used well, but some facts could well have stood to be more asserted. Interesting points are brought up about the limitations of the statistics. Specific cases and examples are interwoven well with the idea of the bigger picture. TSR User:DavyS"

"Quite poor. The maths is very wrong in some places. There is little to no structure in the essay, and sometimes things are just thrown out in surprise. After being given the data, we are immediately modifying it to apply a sine regression line, with no explanation as to why it could fit. We are then going to apply two different regression formula to it, which differ by a constant. However, since it goes through the origin, then clearly the constant is 0. A hotchpotch of mathematical technique applied badly and without accurate description of method. TSR User:DavyS"

"mising"

"At a GCSE level, this coursework is simply okay. There is a slight understanding of proof and relatively complex mathematical techniques have been applied. There appears to be no structure to the mathematical investigation. Some of the maths is very badly phrased. (Either that, or just plain wrong. But I'm an optimist.) The way in which Pythagorean triples are worked out is a mystery. There is some kind of understanding that it was almost done through exhaustion, and the author fails to recognise the fact that after the first set of triples he considers, all he's doing is repeating the experiment but with multiples of the originals. Anybody with slightly more maths knowledge, though, will cringe at the proofs provided, which include circular logic and, all lecturers favourite, hoping that by stating something and glossing over the real strength of the result stated, people will accept it. TSR User:DavyS"