Take this seriously: 20% of this assignment is “meta-review”
Goal: rigorousconstructive critique
Use helper function to perform peer feedback assigned to you. Ask on Teams if still having trouble.
MP#01 - Peer Feedback
Submissions may not map perfectly to rubric - use your best judgement
Be generous but serious:
Goal is improvement, so “everything is great, no comments” is unhelpful
Nothing is completely right nor completely wrong
Remember, meta-review (instructor scores of your feedback) to follow
Learn from this! What can you adapt for MP#02?
MP#01 - Peer Feedback
Example of poor feedback:
Comments
Website looks really good, nice and clean!
Written Communication
Excellent and straight to the point.
Project Skeleton
Solid skeleton, well-organized .
Formatting & Display
Nicely formatted and balanced across the website.
Code Quality
Code runs like Forrest Gump in a Slump.
Data Preparation
Very great.
Extra Credit
Added graphes for even better understanding.
Superficial comments / no sign of actually reading work
Red Flag: Repeated verbatim on several posts
Reminder: Poor feedback \(\neq\) poor work.
MP#01 - Peer Feedback
Example of medium feedback:
## Comments
Love the visuals for Press Releases.
### Written Communication
A short summary or a description of this project would be great to add.
### Project Skeleton
Code completes all instructor-provided tasks correctly.
### Formatting & Display
Tables have well-formatted column names; caption would be great.
### Code Quality
Code is clear and well written.
### Data Preparation
Automatic (10/10). Out of scope for this mini-project.
### Extra Credit
I found all the Press Releases very interesting. The visuals were a great touch.
Gave actionable suggestions
Directionally correct, but a bit vague
MP#01 - Peer Feedback
Example of great feedback:
### Written Communication
Overall, your writing is clear and easy to follow. I noticed a few small typos,
but nothing major — using the built-in spell check in RStudio should catch those
quickly. Everything else looks solid, and I didn’t have any major concerns based
on my review.
### Project Skeleton
All tasks were completed satisfactorily.
### Formatting & Display
Overall, your tables and figures are well-organized and clear. There is one
table in the "Data" section with column titles that could be formatted a little
more cleanly for easier reading. I also noticed a few small typos in some of the
table captions, but they should be easy to fix.
### Code Quality
The code quality is generally good, but there are a few minor linter issues. The
comments could be more frequent and clearer in some places. For example, the
comment `#checking dupolicate so that github will not block it` should be
corrected to "duplicate," and the explanation could be clarified to avoid
confusion–what duplicate are you referring to, and how does it block GitHub?
It might confuse someone else reading the code.
Also, I would recommend moving all library imports to the top of the script,
as that is typically considered standard practice.
### Data Preparation
The data preparation looks solid overall. I like how you handle missing files
and JSON parsing failures–it demonstrates strong defensive programming.
### Extra Credit
Additional two points for using quarto's video support!
Positive tone
Detailed comments
Noted issues & gave suggestions on how to fix
Noted unclear sections for improvement
MP#01 - Peer Feedback
Lack of prior experience is not a hinderance here:
If something is unclear to you, that’s a problem!
Nothing required super-complex code, so anything overly complex probably could have been a simpler way (except for some above-and-beyond stuff)
You don’t have to be definitive in comments - impressions and questions are just as helpful.
Suitability: Does the data do what you need it to?
Right ‘unit of analysis’, construct alignment
Your goal is not to find perfect data sets; your goal is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of what you can access and to work with them accordingly.
Prior Art
Context and Novelty: Why is your project worth doing and what does it add to the conversation?
What else have people said on your topic?
What is missing?
What do you have to add to this conversation? (Novelty)
New data set, new way of measuring, new style of analysis
A research project is not just summarization of other work: how can you contribute something new?
Possible forms of Novelty:
New time period (post-COVID)
Applying an Analysis from LA to NYC
Using an alternative data source
How does your project complement and contrast work already done on the topic?
Project Advice
General Advice:
Work on as small a scale as possible
Leave room to demonstrate your coding skill: if you can’t
demonstrate the skills of this class, your SQ may be too small
Plan how to integrate your findings: if you find 5 factors are all correlated with response, how can you identify which ones are most important?
After presentations: 100% optional intro to SQL
Course Support
Synchronous - MW Office Hours 2x / week:
Tuesdays 5pm: Zoom
Thursdays 5pm: Zoom
Asynchronous: Teams
See Week 02 Slides for advice on asking good questions - Good questions get faster answers
Ask early for help with MPs - fixing problems is slow and iterative
Combining elements into a single plot, not sequencing (no |>)
ggplot2 - Worked Example
Replace default labels:
ggplot(penguins_ok, aes(x=flipper_len, y=body_mass)) +geom_point() +xlab("Flipper Length (mm)") +ylab("Body Mass (g)") +ggtitle("Body Mass vs Flipper Length for 333 Penguins")
Helper functions xlab, ylab, ggtitle
Can also use labs() directly with named arguments:
+labs(x ="Flipper Length(mm)", y ="Body Mass (g)", title="Body Mass vs Flipper Length for 333 Penguins")
ggplot2 - Worked Example
Add color aesthetic
ggplot(penguins_ok, aes(x=flipper_len, y=body_mass, color=species)) +geom_point() +xlab("Flipper Length (mm)") +ylab("Body Mass (g)") +ggtitle("Body Mass vs Flipper Length for 333 Penguins")
Additional aesthetic (color) inherited by geom_point
Automatic identification of categorical (factor) data
ggplot2 - Worked Example
Replace default color scale:
ggplot(penguins_ok, aes(x=flipper_len, y=body_mass, color=species)) +geom_point() +xlab("Flipper Length (mm)") +ylab("Body Mass (g)") +ggtitle("Body Mass vs Flipper Length for 333 Penguins") +scale_color_brewer(name="Species", type="qual", palette=2)
Override default color scale with scale_color_brewer
1973: UC Berkeley was concerned about bias in Grad School Admissions
Higher fraction of men admitted than women
Bickel, Hammell, O’Connell asked to study
When they try to find the source of this bias, there is none!
Each department admits women at a higher rate than men
Women applied to more selective programs at a higher rate
This phenomenon occurs throughout the social sciences: the best doctors have the worst patient outcomes
BHO note:
Women are shunted by their socialization and education toward fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less well funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects.
Red State Blue State
Red State Blue State
Facts about US politics (c. 2008):
Rich people vote Republican at higher rates
Rich states vote Republican at lower rates
Rich states are rich because they have richer people