Tom�s work in this lower-division class ranged from very good to
excellent. The first paper did a very good job of looking at a
variety of issues including justice and its differing definitions
with respect to the state and the individual. Its length diffused
some of its focus. The second paper did an excellent job of
recreating the events of the Battle of Adrianople. The third paper
attempted to draw an analogy between gender inequity and a
society�s evolution to greater agricultural production,
demographic increase, and growing centralization. Connection to
the women in Njal�s Saga and El Cid and other developments
were also made, but the paper needed more synthesis. Tom�s quiz
scores were excellent. He came prepared to the sections and
contributed to the discussions which took place. Overall, very
strong work for the quarter.

This course examines a range of popular movements in nineteenth and
twentieth-century China as a way of exploring continuity and
rupture in Chinese history.  Movements include the Taiping
Rebellion, the Boxers, the 1950s land reform, the Cultural
Revolution, and the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations.  Course
requirements include two short essays, a midterm, a collective
research paper, and several in-class exercises.

Tom was an extremely engaged participant in this course, but his
work was mixed. His first paper, on factors contributing to the
outbreak of the Taiping Rebellion, was an excellent piece of work
that showed a strong grasp of the course material and the ability to
construct a compelling argument. His second paper, a critical essay
on Paul Cohen's book about the Boxers, lacked focus, and after
numerous rewrites he succeeded in addressing the topic successfully.
During an in-class simulation exercise on the communist land reform
of the 1950s, Tom did a good job as an intellectual member of the
land reform team. He also wrote an insightful evaluation of the land
reform reenactment. His midterm on the Chinese evolution presented
an enormous amount of information but did not organize it
effectively; it included a great deal of discussion that was
extraneous to the topic. Tom attended section faithfully and was one
of the most active participants, but his contributions were not
always germane to the topic, and he did not always absorb or
adequately respond to the comments of others.

For the final collective project, Tom worked with five other people
on "Media Coverage of Tiananmen Square." The final draft was a far
more nuanced, coordinated, and organized piece of work than the
rough drafts. The paper argued that the U.S. media, in its coverage
of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, emphasized those aspects of
the demonstrations that Americans would find most comprehensible and
congenial--the struggle for democracy and against communism, the
youth of the protesters, certain icons of the movement--rather than
more complicated but less photogenic issues such as the reform of
socialism from within, the battle against corruption, and the
overlapping but not identical agendas of different groups who
participated in the movement (workers, students, etc.). Tom's
section, on student demands, showed evidence of considerable
research, but required strenuous efforts at editing and refining by
other members of the group. This section now has a focus that it
lacked in previous drafts. Here the student definition of democracy
as meaning accountability of government is explained in a clear
fashion, as are other student demands. Tom wrote a brief but
observant evaluation of the collective paper-writing process.

The course surveys American popular music from its origins to the
present, with special emphasis on the development of rock music
from 1950 to 1975.

Thomas Jigme Wheat passed Music 80h. He scored 59 points out of a
possible 100 on the midterm, and scored 151 points out of a possible
200 on the final exam. He averaged an adequate 67.5% on tests taken;
the class average was 73%. He scored a total of 210 points; at least
170 points were required to pass.

Tom's overall performance was excellent. He was one of the brightest
and most engaged students in the class, of which he did not miss a
single meeting. He attended section regularly, and consistently
demonstrated his engagement with the course material by his
frequent, valued participation, raising important questions
challenging the readings and arguments being discussed.

Tom co-lead the section discussion on the question "Was the New Deal
an effective answer to the Great Depression?" for which he presented
the "Yes" argument without the aid of notes. While he raised some
important points that demonstrated his engagement with the assigned
readings, other key issues were missed, and he is strongly advised
to write down his arguments in future. His paper on the topic was a
very good, solid breakdown of the positive legacies of the New Deal.
The sheer amount of detailed information he provided backed up his
assertions convincingly, and his analysis of the issues raised is
integrated into your explanations very well.

Tom was part of the debate team arguing the "against" side of the
topic "Does early 20th century American foreign policy fulfill FDR's
description of a 'good neighbor' policy." This was an extremely
lively debate, and Tom's presentation of his arguments was extremely
confident, passionate and lawyerly, and he engaged in a very focused
and effective direct rebuttal of precise points raised by his team's
opponents. He wrote a very comprehensive paper on the subject,
demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of the readings, and
incorporating excellent political and economic analysis.

For the final exam, Tom chose to critically evaluate the scholarly
debates about the effectiveness of government in addressing the
social and economic needs of the American public during the 1930s
New Deal and the 1960s Great Society. While Tom's essay was very
good when it stayed focused on the issues, incorporating a critique
of the scholarly arguments and explanations of specific New Deal and
Great Society programs, it sometimes wandered off into vague
philosophical discussions of 1990s policies and programs.

This course covered nineteenth and twentieth century social and
intellectual history of India comprising lectures, viewing films
by Satyajit Ray, and readings among original sources and recent
scholarship.  The requirements were three papers on assigned
topics and a final exam.

Jigme Wheat wrote his first essay on British colonial rule and its
ideology, the second on aspects of nationalist thought and Tagore's
novel Home and the World, and the third on Gandhi and Nehru. His
final (take-home) was okay. Jigme was a regular and conscientious
member of the class. His written work showed that he had difficulty
in developing ideas coherently and constructing a sound argument.
Each essay, however, showed that he had interesting ideas. With some
help from a writing tutor, the quality of his work will improve.
Overall, a pass.

This seminar on the historical development of European orientalism
focused on the politics of the representation of non-Western
societies in Western art, literature, ethnography, politics, and its
subsequent transformations, appropriations, and resistances.
Students wrote a short paper, gave an extended oral presentation,
and wrote a fifteen-page term paper which went through two drafts.

Thomas Wheat's performance in this course was on balance good to
quite good work. Tom's first paper was filled with important
insights and bristling with intellectual energy, but suffered from
disorganization and writing problems. On balance, it was generally
quite good. A more focused approach which more directly engaged
the assignment might have been preferable and led to a more
successful paper. Mr. Wheat's term paper, "Modern Orientalism: A
Study of Sub-Colonialism and Neo-Imperialist Ideologies," went
through two drafts. It sought to examine critically British and
Chinese representations of Tibet. Although Mr. Wheat's paper
contained some important insights and spots of brilliance, it was
plagued by many shortcomings, and these were not improved in the
second draft. Thus his paper was prolix, uncritical, often
inaccurate, and lacked a coherent argument. On balance, it was a
decidedly mixed performance, generally fair to good in quality.
His critiques of the two student draft papers assigned him were
thoughtful and voluminous, but somewhat disorganized. Mr.  Wheat's
comments in the seminar discussions were frequent, but rather
mixed in quality: some were brilliant, others were quite off the
point. On the whole, his was a performance filled with promise,
but falling short in the end: good to quite good overall.

Tom Wheat was an unusually knowledgeable and engaged participant in
this course.  His work consistently demonstrated a sophisticated
understanding of the materials and concepts.  His first paper was a
dense exposition of his idea that the consistencies between the two
texts on Buddhist monastic life are more compelling than the
distinctions.  It was thoughtful and convincing.  The paper had a
tendency to digress from the point at hand and could have been more
carefully edited for clarity, but nonetheless represented very good
work.  Tom's second paper proved that he had synthesized the
material and is more than capable of setting forth convincing
original interpretations.  He outlined some very sophisticated
insights and generally offered strong evidence to support them.  The
paper might have integrated the various sources more fluidly, and
been edited for clarity, but overall represented very good work.
His third paper ranged across a number of original topics without
presenting an appropriate overall thesis.  It nonetheless was a good
effort.  Tom was a very enthusiastic participant in discussions.

C. Barkey, T.A.

Tom's work in this course was very good to excellent.  Tom completed
all of the eight short weekly assignments.  His work in these
assignments showed a deep commitment to the issues of the course and
a good engagement with the assigned readings.  Tom was clearly most
drawn to the history of Buddhism, which comprised a major component
of the class.  While his earlier essays tended to be overcome by his
prior knowledge of Buddhism and thus expand more upon that than upon
the immediate issues at hand, his later papers were much more
tightly focused, well-supported and on the point.  His writing also
showed significant improvement over the course of the quarter.  The
earlier papers were a little vague, with long sentences and often
imprecise word choice.  His later papers showed an ability to
respond to instruction; his arguments became much clearer, he
supported his theses with plenty of evidence and his sentences
became shorter and more precise.  Tom deserves a lot of credit for
the hard work and improvement he demonstrated.  Tom attended
discussion section faithfully and was an active participant, often
contributing very insightful comments.  For the final paper, Tom
wrote an excellent paper on the historical development of Buddhism.
The paper was comprehensive, well organized and written and firmly
supported by the texts in the class.  It was a very strong end to a
quarter of hard work and tremendous improvement.

Thomas Wheat's overall performance in this course was noteworthy. 
Tom's midterm was exceptional and the essay he wrote for the
final/research paper was exhaustive.  His contribution to class
participation was notable although at times his comments seemed to
run far afield of the topic.  To his credit, he was always
prepared fro class.  Tom 's research paper was difficult to
assess.  It was well researched and it touched upon the many
events of the Cold War.  The essay would have been much improved
had Tom spent more time editing the final version.  Tom seems to
have difficulty confining his narrative.  As a result, his
analysis at times becomes lost in a sea of events, people, dates,
and places.  Tom has several technical problems with his writing
that need to be addressed.  His sentences are needlessly complex. 
His paragraphs lack internal organization.  His prose is
cumbersome.  Nevertheless, Tom demonstrated that he is a talented
and capable student with a good grasp of U.S. diplomatic history. 
Tom is an open and inquisitive individual with a good, if at times
undisciplined mind.  Tom is a capable student who with more
discipline has the potential to be an accomplished student.  At
times he shows signs of brilliance.  I hope he will continue his
studies in history.  Based upon Tom's performance in this class, I
would be willing to give him my conditional recommendation.

In this course we discussed the character and practices of the
ancient Athenian democracy.  Students were evaluated on the basis
of class participation and three tests.  They were also required
to submit a term paper of 5-10 pages on a topic of their choice.
Students submitted a preliminary draft of this paper for peer
review and then redrafted before final submission.

I thought long and hard about about whether to pass Mr. Wheat.  His
performance on the tests was barely passing.  He attended regularly
and was an active participant in class discussion, though his
comments were frequently non-sequiturs.  His paper was not
acceptable:  incoherent and rambling;  no citation of ancient
sources or modern bibliography;  not formatted to specifications.
On the other hand, I believe he worked in this course:  so a pass,
with reservations.

The student did not pass the course.

Politics 70 is a lower-division lecture course introducing
students to key concepts and theories in global politics. 
Students are evaluated on the basis of a medium length paper that
integrates a contemporary international issue-area of their
choosing with the more general course concepts and theories, two
in-class examinations, and the quality and frequency of their
discussion section contribution.

Tom Wheat received the grade of "C" in Politics 70.  His issue area
was the genocide in Rwanda.  While his paper was well-researched, it
lacked coherence, organization, and any foundation in the theories
or concepts of the course.

On his mid-term and final exams Tom did very good and non-passing
work, respectively. My Teaching Assistant reports that he attended
five out of eight discussion sections.

Overall, a good performance.

This upper-division course charts Russian history
from its roots in Kiev to the Romanov dynasty.  Although Russia
began as a collection of isolated farming groups and later
individual city-states, it united under Kiev and later Moscow to
become an autocratic nation, a nation that survived the invasion
by and subjugation to the Mongol Hordes.

incomplete, was unable to take the final exam

Thomas had a mixed but generally good quarter. His performance on
his midterm was excellent. His paper had unusual dimensions but
was crafted with undeniable intensity. Circumstances prevented
Thomas from taking the final exam, but given his overall level of
engagement with the texts, it was decided to forego the formality
of giving a makeup and thereby delaying the outcome of the course.
All in all, a good effort by an engaged student.

D H Anthony

Thomas completed most class work assignments. Although his written
assignments were not always clear it is evident that Thomas has
great promise as a student. His final project was completed but
his participation was altered by his state of mind. This course
deals with death and how traditions are celebrated in other
cultures.

His first paper was good. His performance on the midterm was very
good. His performance on the oral exam demonstrated a very good
grasp of the course material. Almost excellent.

Examines China in the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), focusing upon the
imperial state, economic activity, ethnic conflict, gender
relations, kinship practices, foreign imperialism, peasant
rebellion, and the collapse of China's dynastic system. Students
complete several brief film responses, three text analyses, a
midterm, a 6-8 page paper, and a final examination, and
participate in a historical simulation, the Qing Game.

Tom did very good work in this course.  Of his three short text
analyses, one was good to very good, the second was slightly less
strong, and the third was very good. The arguments in all of them
could have been more clearly focused. He did a passable job with the
midterm identifications,and his essay on modes of mobility for men
and women in late imperial China was good, although it needed a
clearer structure. His paper on historical treatments of the Boxer
movement contained a good summary and a fine command of language,
but needed a more tightly structured argument. Toms attendance at
section was spotty but he was an active participant in discussions.
His final examination made excellent use of course materials and
featured superb deployment of detail. GRADE: B+

Tom did fine work in this course.  He attended regularly, listened
well and made good comments in discussion.  His written work,
including response papers, final essay, and exams, was incredibly
diligent.  A thoughtful, intelligent performance.

This lecture and discussion course introduced students to
macrosociology via the concepts of Marx, Weber, and Wallerstein,
the comparative analysis of modern revolutions, and the study of
contemporary global development. Two papers and a  final exam were
required.

Mr Wheat had a perfect attendance record and was a lively
participant in class.  He hadw difficulty wrestling his papers into
clearly organized and sufficiently brief essays, yet he showed much
understanding of the materials.  He did extremely well on both the
short answer and essay portions of the exam, thus pulling his grade
up to a B+.