1 / 4

Student Paper Competition Summary

Student Paper Competition Summary. Summary of Papers. 13 Structures Student papers were reviewed Scores for the paper judging ranged from 91 to 63. Top 5 were 91-89 (next highest score was 83) Presentation s cores were 91-89. Top scores: 91, 90, 83. T op 2 presentations were winners

brynn-franklin
Download Presentation

Student Paper Competition Summary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Student Paper CompetitionSummary

  2. Summary of Papers • 13 Structures Student papers were reviewed • Scores for the paper judging ranged from 91 to 63. Top 5 were 91-89 (next highest score was 83) • Presentation scores were 91-89. Top scores: 91, 90, 83. Top 2 presentations were winners • Lockheed Martin Award: • Andrew Thurber (Va Tech) • Harry Hilton Award: • Broderick Coburn (U of Bristol)

  3. Observations and Recommendations • Subcommittee organization is very helpful • Look at # of volunteers it took to make student paper judging successful • For ASC –Composite paper, need more direction to choose top Composite paper • Of the top 6 finalist papers, they were ‘word searched’ for the word “composite” and 2 were found, so no other composite paper was added for review • One of the 2 papers only stated “Composites would be looked at in future work”. So, ASC award was given to the other paper … may not have been a strong presentation. • Suggest ASC select 2 papers to be have presentation judged • Will provide next year deadlines for papers when available • Would encourage all professors to encourage students to participate • Understand that separate judging of presentations may need to happen when award needs to be defined by COB Monday of conference. • Have seen difference in presentations, but that’s the only way at this time.

  4. THANKS to ALL who Judged • John Wang • David Wieland • PravinAggarwal • Mike Ross • Harry Hilton • Stephen Clay • Jeff Umland • OlesyaZhupanska • Michael Enright • Brandon Wegge • Scott Norwood • Michael Wolff • Peter Gustafson • Rob Taylor • Alex Selvarathinam • ChiaraBisagni • Ho-Jun Lee • Ali Najafi

More Related