Section 1: Introduction                             20/20

Good introduction the the topic and to the general results you found
and how they fit into the previous work that you looked at.


Section 2: Methods                                  19/20

Overall, a good summary of your methods.  Were there differences
between your first and second batches?  If there weren’t, it’s unclear
why they are separate.  If there were, you should talk about that.


Section 3: Results                                  8/20

You present appropriate types of analyses for your data, and generally
clearly state the conclusions you draw.  However, it looks like there
are some errors in your understanding of the statistical methods.

Weighting strata is appropriate when trying to compute a value over
the whole population (for instance, the mean political beliefs of
Carnegie Mellon) but not when looking at the means for individual
strata.

Also, the p-values you get from the t tests you did seem to disagree
with the 95% confidence intervals you compute.  Significant
differences in the means should be reflected by non-overlapping
confidence intervals, but all of your CI are clearly overlapping.  I
suspect there are errors in your calculations somewhere along the
line.  Doing the calculations in R would indeed have helped avoid such
problems.

Finally, you mention that you exclude “inappropriate” responses.  You
state that your questions were multiple choice, so how could a
respondent answer inappropriately?


Section 4: Discussion                               20/20

Your discussion nicely sums up the conclusions you made from your
data.


List of References                                  10/10

Appendices                                          10/10


TOTAL                                               87/100