Application  (hide)

Applicant

Fred Flintstone (fred@bedrock.com)

Address

1234 Stoney Way

School of Graduate Studies (SGS) Applicant ID #

200500000001

Intended Program of Study

M.Sc. (full-time)

Expected Enrolment Date

September 2006

Country of Citizenship

Bedrock

Status in Canada

Student Visa

Referees

report received

Z

slate@bedrock.com

Honors thesis supervisor

report received

Y

rubble@bedrock.com

Summer Research supervisor

report received

X

rockhead@bedrock.com

Academic History

Start Date mm/yyyy

End Date mm/yyyy

University Name & Location e.g., XYZ University, City, Country

Program Length

Degree Name e.g., B.Sc.

Degree Awarded?

Overall Average e.g., 93/100  or 4.0/4.3

Final Year Average e.g., 90/100 or 3.6/4.0

Confirmed by DCS?

1

02/2002

12/2005

University of Mars, New New York, Mars

4

B.Eng

No

87.18/100

90.00/100

2

3

4

5

Language of instruction at previous universities attended

English

Languages in which you are fluent

English

TOEFL Score

267

TWE/Essay Rating score

GRE Score

Courses currently enrolled in

Intelligent Agents Computer Vision

Awards/Scholarships/Fellowships

Areas of Interest

Artificial Intelligence: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (e.g., knowledge representation, reasoning & inference, planning & decision making, search, multiagent systems) Artificial Intelligence: Machine Learning (e.g., classification & regression, neural networks, information extraction, learning theory) Theory: Algorithms and Computational Complexity (e.g., cryptography, lower bounds, approximation algorithms, proof complexity, randomized algorithms)

Required Supporting Documents (electronic soft copies)

Statement of Purpose:

419-Statement of Purpose  (pdf, 66 KB)

Resume:

419-Resume  (pdf, 116 KB)

Copy of transcripts:

419-Copy of transcripts  (pdf, 105 KB)

Optional Supporting Documents

419-Optional Supporting Documents.pdf  (pdf, 1.1 MB)

Physical hard copy documents received by the department

TRANSCRIPTS received

DCS verification of documents

Status

Verified by & Comments

Transcripts

TOEFL

GRE

Reference letter #1

Reference letter #2

Reference letter #3

Committee Use

Bedrock

800

THEORY, KR

MSC

Complete Bachelors

DCS Comments

	Referee		Z
	Referee's information
		Associate Professor School of Computer Science and Engineering University of Mars New New York Mars
	Overall Rating of Applicant
		5    (Outstanding)
	Comments on the applicant
		Fred is one of the best Honours students I have supervised during my academic career at the University of Mercury, University of Venus and University of Mars. He is equal to the best amongst this group (which includes the best undergraduate students on Mars) and also amongst that group consisting of Ph.D. students I have seen on Venus (at University of Newer York, University of New LA, University of New Seattle – among the top universities on Venus). He is particularly quick to grasp new ideas and concepts, he is especially enthusiastic and eager to learn, and he is willing to work hard. In his undergraduate work, he has shown dedication and commitment, as well as the ability to solve difficult programming problems. He has an easy going nature and is willing to share ideas with colleagues, and most importantly, he has an excellent attitude – he has a healthy, questioning, respect for the academic literature sometimes absent in the very best students. For his Honours work, he has undertaken a theoretical and computational comparison of agent-based models of teamwork, which involves coming to terms with some difficult mathematics (including modal logic) and understanding some complex agent theories and architectures (SharedPlans, JACKTeams, Steam). He has developed a keen insight into this material, and his main result, a general implementation of the SharedPlans theory, will be published in the Marsian Undergraduate Computer Science Students conference later this year. I expect a longer version of this work to also be publishable. On the basis of his Honours results, he is a strong candidate for a university medal in Computer Science. In summary, I have no hesitation in recommending Fred for a postgraduate scholarship; were there not so few scholarships available at UNNY for non-Mars citizens, he would have no difficulty receiving support here. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information. Yours sincerely,
	Referee		Y
	Referee's information
		School of Computer Science and Engineering The University of Mars New New York Mars
	Overall Rating of Applicant
		5    (Outstanding)
	Comments on the applicant
		I have known Fred since 2003, as I was lecturer in charge of the course CS 2411, Logic and Logic Programming, at the School of Computer Science of the University of New New York. Fred ranked first amongst 170 students, demonstrating exceptional abilities in abstract thinking. He was remarkable not only as a high achiever, but also as a student who aimed at gaining a deep and thorough understanding of questions that went far beyond the standard material being taught. At the end of 2003, Fred worked with me for a couple of months on a research project, as part of the ``taste of research'' summer program. The research was rather theoretical and related to a framework that extends the classical paradigm of Logic programming. During these two months, Fred demonstrated his broad range of intellectual abilities, coming up with involved examples or counter-examples and proving nontrivial results. He showed great creativity combined with intellectual rigour. It was a great pleasure to work with him, as he always patiently listened to suggestions that he examined in a very critical and constructive way, and at the same time proposed and explored other directions of research. Though we have not been working together since then, we still meet regularly and I always appreciate his moral qualities, particularly his humility, simplicity, generosity and kindness. Any person who works with him can only highly regard him both intellectually and personally. He is an exceptional candidate and I wish he can continue to study in an environment that will allow him to strive.
	Referee		X
	Referee's information
		Computer Sciences Laboratory Institute of Advanced Studies University of New LA New LA Mars
	Overall Rating of Applicant
		5    (Outstanding)
	Comments on the applicant
		Overall Rating of Applicant Outstanding = 5 I am an associated professor, which is one level below full professor on Mars. My area of expertise is logic in computer science, and more specifically in automated reasoning. This recommendation is a little unusual because I have never taught or supervised Fred . He came to my attention because he emailed me to enquire about working as my phd student. Once I saw his undergraduate marks and his recommendations from the University of New New York (UNNY), I immediately said yes. Since then, I have had many email discussions with him about his interests and background. However, it turned out that Fred's visa conditions do not allow him to study for his Phd on Mars because he received an undergraduate scholarship from the Marsian government under the MarsAID programme. I have supervised numerous Venusian MarsAID students over the last six years and all of them have been exceptional. From my experience of the UNNY system, I can assure you that Fred's marks are outstanding. He is clearly an extremely able student. Fred also has an excellent mathematical background. From my interactions with him over email I am convinced that he is extremely motivated. His publication record is also very impressive for an undergraduate student so he is clearly bright. I am therefore very confident that Fred will excel in his Phd studies. Indeed, the only reason that he applied to Toronto is because I encouraged him to do so once I realised that I could not supervise him myself. I have a BSc and an MSc in Computer Science from the University of Venus, and a Phd from the University of Mars. I therefore know the calibre of the students you seek, and am confident that Fred is in this league. I recommend him unreservedly. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information.

Preliminary Assessment

Review Summary

Reviewer	Role		Score		Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6
CM3	committee member		6		6 4 3 x 4 4
CM4	committee member		6		6 4 3 x 4 4
CM5	committee member
R1	faculty		6		6 4 1 4 x x
R2	faculty		6		6 4 5 4 x x
R3	faculty		6		6 4 3 3 x x
R4	faculty		6		6 4 3 4 x x
R5	faculty
R6	faculty		6		6 4 4 4 x x
R7	faculty		6		6 - 3 3 x x
R8	faculty
R9	faculty

Reviews

Reviewer

CM3    (committee member)

Q1. Quality Rating of Applicant

6    (Top-notch: outstanding applicant, way above the bar for our program)

Q2. Ranking of Applicant within Research Area

4    (Top: among the top 25% of this year's applicants)

Q3. Match of Applicant to Faculty Member and/or Research Group

3    (Good match for group: does not match my interests, but might be of interest to others in my group )

Q5. Committee Member's Recommendation to Admissions Committee

4    (Invite to visit: applicant should be invited for the interview day, if possible (modulo geographical/visa constraints))

Q6. Post Interview Admissions Recommendation by Committee Member

4    (Definitely admit)

Comments on the applicant

Looks like a strong student. Mentions R4 explicitly. Post Interview =============== He was unable to attend the Grad Visit Day. R4 and R2 have spoken to him and feel he's (well) above the bar.

Reviewer

CM4    (committee member)

Q1. Quality Rating of Applicant

6    (Top-notch: outstanding applicant, way above the bar for our program)

Q2. Ranking of Applicant within Research Area

4    (Top: among the top 25% of this year's applicants)

Q3. Match of Applicant to Faculty Member and/or Research Group

3    (Good match for group: does not match my interests, but might be of interest to others in my group )

Q5. Committee Member's Recommendation to Admissions Committee

4    (Invite to visit: applicant should be invited for the interview day, if possible (modulo geographical/visa constraints))

Q6. Post Interview Admissions Recommendation by Committee Member

4    (Definitely admit)

Comments on the applicant

excellent. mentions R2 and R4. we should pursue aggressively. phone call by R2.

Reviewer

R1    (faculty)

Q1. Quality Rating of Applicant

6    (Top-notch: outstanding applicant, way above the bar for our program)

Q2. Ranking of Applicant within Research Area

4    (Top: among the top 25% of this year's applicants)

Q3. Match of Applicant to Faculty Member and/or Research Group

1    (Poor match: does not match the interests of anyone in my group)

Q4. Recommendation to Admissions Commitee

4    (Invite to visit: applicant should be invited for the interview day, if possible (modulo geographical/visa constraints))

Comments on the applicant

Reviewer

R2    (faculty)

Q1. Quality Rating of Applicant

6    (Top-notch: outstanding applicant, way above the bar for our program)

Q2. Ranking of Applicant within Research Area

4    (Top: among the top 25% of this year's applicants)

Q3. Match of Applicant to Faculty Member and/or Research Group

5    (Must have: I really want to work with this applicant!)

Q4. Recommendation to Admissions Commitee

4    (Invite to visit: applicant should be invited for the interview day, if possible (modulo geographical/visa constraints))

Comments on the applicant

This guy has has extraordinarily strong letters -- one of them (X) from the faculty who recommended my present excellent student W. (In fact X emailed me in the fall giving me a heads up to this applicant.) The applicant also has an impressive resume. We should certainly accept him, and I'd be happy to supervise him. (He has a good background in logic.) In fact he's been emailing me saying he wants to work with me -- maybe partly because he knows W. However he seems to be more interested in AI and in his statement he mentions R4 as a possible supervisor (as well as me).

Reviewer

R3    (faculty)

Q1. Quality Rating of Applicant

6    (Top-notch: outstanding applicant, way above the bar for our program)

Q2. Ranking of Applicant within Research Area

4    (Top: among the top 25% of this year's applicants)

Q3. Match of Applicant to Faculty Member and/or Research Group

3    (Good match for group: does not match my interests, but might be of interest to others in my group )

Q4. Recommendation to Admissions Commitee

3    (Phone interview: must talk to applicant over the phone before making any further decisions)

Comments on the applicant

Becasue of distance can only interview by phone. But this looks like a definite accept

Reviewer

R4    (faculty)

Q1. Quality Rating of Applicant

6    (Top-notch: outstanding applicant, way above the bar for our program)

Q2. Ranking of Applicant within Research Area

4    (Top: among the top 25% of this year's applicants)

Q3. Match of Applicant to Faculty Member and/or Research Group

3    (Good match for group: does not match my interests, but might be of interest to others in my group )

Q4. Recommendation to Admissions Commitee

4    (Invite to visit: applicant should be invited for the interview day, if possible (modulo geographical/visa constraints))

Comments on the applicant

Gold Medal in IMO!! Excellent. R5 might also be interested.

Reviewer

R5    (faculty)

Q1. Quality Rating of Applicant

6    (Top-notch: outstanding applicant, way above the bar for our program)

Q2. Ranking of Applicant within Research Area

4    (Top: among the top 25% of this year's applicants)

Q3. Match of Applicant to Faculty Member and/or Research Group

4    (Good match for me: this applicant is a good match with my interests)

Q4. Recommendation to Admissions Commitee

4    (Invite to visit: applicant should be invited for the interview day, if possible (modulo geographical/visa constraints))

Comments on the applicant

I agree with CM3, R2 and others. This candidate looks extremely good. All being equal, I'd be willing to supervise him/her/it. If we can't afford to invite for a visit, we should at least call.

Reviewer

R6    (faculty)

Q1. Quality Rating of Applicant

6    (Top-notch: outstanding applicant, way above the bar for our program)

Q2. Ranking of Applicant within Research Area

Q3. Match of Applicant to Faculty Member and/or Research Group

3    (Good match for group: does not match my interests, but might be of interest to others in my group )

Q4. Recommendation to Admissions Commitee

3    (Phone interview: must talk to applicant over the phone before making any further decisions)

Comments on the applicant

He looks very strong. Interested in logic and is both practically oriented (ACM programming competition) and theoretically strong (gold metal in IMO). He could pursue a number of different directions, but the most important thing is to get him here. He is a clear accept, but a phone call to check is communication skills would be sensible.

Back to previous page

powered by