9005	Assessment Initial Draft	Final Draft comments
Abstract	Fine.	Well adjusted to new focus on one-child generation.
Research Question	One might reasonably say this is very clear or rather unclear.  The goals of the project are stated several times in the draft proposal, and they are lucid and sensible in each place.  There is one fundamental problem.  As now written this could be a proposal for five or more years of research.  It is well-conceived and worthy research.  But this is simply too ambitious as now written.  So, we need to find some narrower focus for the initial project for the MA degree.   Of course, there is some sense that the focus will be on the changing role of education over the past half century and its affects on mobility, which is a good start, but even this is a rather general.  Once we open it up we have to contend with varied kinds of mobility (educational, occupational, income); the complications of variations by gender, urban-rural differences, party connections, etc.; distinguishing structural from relative mobility in such a fluid historical environment; and so on.  Think of dividing the overall research agenda into stages, and then perhaps the first stage into sub-projects, where the aim is to start with a good sub-project of the first stage.	Clear and well-stated.
Literature Review	The literature review is well done.  It does a good job identifying how the existing research on inequality and mobility in China handles the big questions about changes over the past half century.  Once the proposal presents a narrower focus for the initial project, the literature review might need revision to take this narrower focus into account.	Improved conclusion aimed at new focus.  Other than some minor issues with writing quality, literature review is very good and covers appropriate depth and breadth of literature.
Data & Analysis	The data appear to be the best possible for the goals.  Undoubtedly, increased knowledge of the data will reveal some unexpected problems.  However, chances are good that it will also reveal some unanticipated opportunities. Once the research question is more narrowly focused, it will be easier to choose the specific method of data analysis. The EGP "class" schema mentioned toward the end of section IV can be useful, but it may be early to be deciding its value for this project.  Yes, it could possibly be applied to assessments of intergenerational occupational mobility in China.  But its value will become clear only after looking some at the empirical data, considering possible differences in the implications of occupational categories in China, possibly examining relationships between occupational categories and both education and income, and considering the implications of the dramatic historical changes over the research period.  In short, the EGP strategy is worth considering, but look at it critically in the context of the research, data, and historical reality.	The China Family Panel Studies seems to excellent data for the study, but the sample sizes for your sub-cohorts may be too small for effective comparisons between them.  Again, this is likely to put the study in the position that it will be able to draw conclusions if it does find differences but not if it cannot find differences that are statistically significant.  Taking into account the number of independent variables and controls, the sample sizes appear too small for effective comparisons. The ideas about variables to use and statistical techniques to apply are very good.
Causal Interpretations	The causal discussion is located in several places in the proposal, which makes it a little disconnected.  Still, the grasp of the literature and the arguments made are consistently sound.  One note: I question the concern (section III, last paragraph) that education and class position have a two-way causation because people choose educational goals in anticipation of the practical advantages.  This seems to confuse relationships between variables with causal relations.  Of course, class origins influence educational achievements, but that is cross-generational.  Also, what is perceived as attainable and desirable will always influence choice patterns, but that is also something else.  Here it may be helpful to recall the importance of causal mechanisms.	Hypotheses 1 & 2 are formally correct, but it is doubtful that the two adjacent 4-year cohorts could be considered distinct enough to reject hypothesis 1 if no difference found.  If a difference is found, that would be an effective outcome.  That is, the data are sufficient to draw conclusions in only one direction of the possible outcomes. For Hypothesis 3, usually we would family size would affect investment in children mainly for people with limited resources, so the affluent or well-placed (party position?) are less likely to show a family size effect. As written, Hypothesis 5 is obscure, although I suspect that you mean that you expect to find greater inequality in 2016 (although you do not say why).
Research Contribution	The proposal makes the case for the project's value, but this might be stated in a clear, simple, separate statement (which will depend on the decisions about a further focus of the research).	Fine.  Good consideration of research value and how it fills gap in existing literature.
Citations & Bibliography	Citations and bibliography are fine.	Well done.
Quality of Writing & Organization	The writing is okay.  The proposal could use a bit of editing for occasional, minor glitches.  Also, it might display a tendency to write overly long paragraphs, but not to a level that is problematic. (Minor note: While “researches” is formally a correct plural noun, its [fairly rare] use as such is generally limited to circumstances where the research acts are considered "countable", as in "Janet's researches into her cousin's habits over the years"; when referring to the work done in an area, we usually use the collective singular version of “research” as in "the research of many scholars on class origins".  Usually, if we really want to use a plural form, we use a different wording, such as "many studies" or "many research efforts" or "many published research accounts".)	Improved, but still contains some awkward phrasing and grammatical errors.
Priorities for Revising / Responsiveness to Feedback	Setting aside the ambition, the proposal is developing very well.  The main priority would seem to be narrowing the project to a clear focus, along with getting some experience with the data.	Good responses to feedback.
Miscellaneous Notes
Proposal		Overall, this seems to be a well designed research project.  It will probably need some adjustments once facing the realities of the data, but these should be constructive.
Class Overall		Excellent performance in all aspects of the class.