Team 2-B		75/100

BUTLER, EMILY LYNN        Senior HSS STA  L     9.0  elbutler
MAKRIS, CHRISTOPHER PETER Senior HSS STA  L     9.0  cmakris  
TODD, THOMAS RANDAL       Senior HSS STA  L     9.0  trt      
HAYES, MEGGIE ROCHELLE    Senior HSS HSS  L     9.0  mrhayes 
HECKMANN, DOUGLAS R       Soph   HSS STA  L     9.0  dheckman

1. Four-Loko's Effects on College Students (On & Off Campus)


   A. Interest.	       15/20

      Interest in fourloko seems high.  However, the health risk
      issues seem to dominate the "consumer opinion" issues, so it's
      difficult to see how anyone could "act" on the results of this
      survey.  If there is a serious health risk, then the drink will
      be banned regardless of consumer demand.  If the risk is not
      greater than with other alcoholic beverages, then the survey
      simply functions as "free advertising".

      Given that the maker seems to have dropped stimulants from the
      drink, removing much of the heightened health concern, it's
      difficult to see that there is still an important, "actionable"
      question to answer here. 

      How could you change the topic to make the results of the survey
      more important/"actionable" [and still somehow be sensitive to
      the questions underlying the fourloko issue]?


   B. Research Questions.	15/20

      I like the idea that you might compare CMU to Pitt students.
      Think about ways of approaching students that do not require
      email access (since you will likely not have a good email frame
      for Pitt).

      Otherwise the questions are not very detailed.  What aspects of
      "student attitudes toward the beverage" are important here?

      Of course the major research questions will change somewhat if
      you modify the topic as I have suggested under A.


   C. References.    10/10

      Fine.


2. Students' Reactions to Carnegie Mellon's Fiscal Expenditures



   A. Interest.	       10/20

      I was not sure what "fiscal expenditures" or "financial
      expenditures" were when I first read the proposal.  I also did
      not know what you meant by "alumni endowments" (if you mean
      alumni gifts & donations to the university, say so).

      I also had a hard time understanding the links you were trying
      to draw between (i) tuition costs; (ii) "alumni endowments";
      (iii) "excessive and seemingly unnecessary changes to our
      campus".

      To pursue this I would suggest researching:

      (a) the university budget generally, and in particular how
          student tuition, and fees, are actually spent  [you have
          some of this in your references now]

      (b) the financial sources for major CMU campus building /
          landscaping / art initiatives (e.g. are these paid for from
          the same "pot" as tuition, or are they paid for by special
          gifts, donations, and fund drives/capital campaigns?).
          E.g. research several specific cases of recent changes to
          the campus.

      (c) Motivations for alumni giving (e.g. contact someone in the
          alumni relations or donor development offices to get a
          profile of what works to get small doners to donate money,
          what works for large donors to donate money, etc.)

       It might be of some interest to compare how students think
       money is accumulated and spent under (a) and (b), vs how it is
       actually accumulated and spent.

       I am not sure at all how to link this to concrete, real alumni
       giving, unless the alumni relations people also have a profile
       of what sort of undergraduates become alumni donors.  Perhaps
       one could also ask whether a respondent will become alumni
       donor (though this might be difficult to answer accurately),
       and relate this to student perceptions of spending.


   B. Research Questions. 	  15/20

      Generally unfocused, but I think this is in part because the
      main issue is not very focused yet.

   C. References.   	     10/10

      OK.