Prepare to discuss, peer-review style, the strengths and opportunities for development they present. Use your entry to represent the project, highlight strengths, and recommend at least one significant improvement. Also address: what does looking at these give you to consider about your own project?

The first proposal we read was one of a previous interdisciplinary studies major. Their project was to complete a paper regarding the philosophical question of “How can a just God allow suffering”. The student clearly presents this in the opening of their proposal, stating that they were going to achieve this through employing “the strategies and style of a traditional, critical philosophy paper”. I thought that by stating this clearly, it introduces the reader to the point of the argument and how they were going to achieve this. Furthermore, the student clearly states who they are working with and what specific influence and role they have on the project. Following this, they list coursework they have completed while at UNE and how that has shaped their thinking and skills. I thought this was done nicely and gave thorough context to their project and how it concludes their academic career at UNE. Personally, I think that the conclusion is one of the weaker points of the proposal since it is very short and grouped in with a paragraph about the coursework they took. I would suggest to the writer that they should separate the conclusion into two separate paragraphs and reiterate what they stated in the previous paragraphs. 

Looking at the second proposal, I think that the author also did a fair job introducing the topic of their research which initially was to explore the use of animals in writing. I thought this introduction was well written and outlined the sources and question well.  However, I noticed that as the proposal progressed the question at hand became unclear as the author introduced other questions. While it is important to explore your conditions and limitations to your readers, I think that should not take focus over the central claim. I feel like to fix this, the author could either focus on a single book rather than three. Another option is to reconsider the thematic approach and how they incorporate their sources. Another strength would be the annotated bibliography that the author provided. I thought that it was beneficial to have these sources listed and how they supported the thesis. 

The last proposal, which was written by a philosophy student who chose to investigate “what it is to attribute humanness to others”. They chose to present their proposal in an informal, bulleted list rather than essay format. While this makes the information concise, it does not provide the reader enough information to understand the goal of the project. They also do not provide specific sources but rather a general location which they will source them from. Generalization like this continues further as the student references the courses and skills they have but does not specifically name any. I would suggest to them to take the time to find the sources and consider what specific skills they have developed while at UNE.