Proposal # or names of particpants:________________________________________________________________:
Eligibility
The student will be enrolled as an undergraduate in the next academic year? Y or N
All required components of the application are complete? Y or N
Will student and faculty mentor be available from June 1 through July 31? Y or N
Exemplary (2 pts each)
Participants
Commitment
Preparation
Background
Average ( 1 pt each)
Deficient (0 pts each)
Student’s academic performance is
exemplary.
Mentor has a history of working
collaboratively with undergraduates
Student’s academic performance is
average.
Mentor does not have a strong history
of successful mentoring of
undergraduates.
Student’s academic performance
is deficient.
Mentor does not appear to be
prepared for the unique challenges
associated with mentoring
Both mentor and student will devote
significant time to the project. Other
responsibilities (teaching, classes,
travel) are limited.
Either mentor or student has other
commitments during the summer that
may interfere with their ability to
meet the expectations of the program.
Either mentor or student has
significant obligations during the
summer that will severely hinder their
ability to participate fully.
The student understands and explains
how participation will enhance their
career and/or academic goals.
Relationship to career/academic goals
is vague, indirect or unclear.
Relationship to career goals/academic
interests is not apparent.
Strong evidence of prior interactions
between mentor and student.
Prior interaction between student and
mentor is limited
No interactions prior to the
development of the proposal.
Sub Score (Circle One)
Score
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Comments
Exemplary (2 pts each)
Proposal
Background
Authenticity
Methodology
The proposal includes a review of
literature OR clearly outlines relevant
prior work that justifies a clear
“statement of purpose” (e.g.
hypothesis, research question, goal,
objective). The significance of the
project is clear
The project is authentic (i.e.
representative of work done by
professionals and/or academics in the
field) and will likely produce a valid
scholarly product.
The proposal includes a clear and
feasible methodology. Potential
problems are addressed and
alternative strategies are included if
appropriate.
Collaboration
Score
Comments
The roles of the mentor and the
student are clearly delineated and
obviously represent a collaborative
effort. The plan includes sufficient
“face-time” between the student and
the mentor.
8
7
6
Adequate ( 1 pt each)
Deficient (0 pts each)
Prior work or literature review is
present but is somewhat vague or
unclear in establishing the projects
goals or significance
Background is incomplete and/or
does not create strong justification of
the project’s purpose, goals or
significance.
Authenticity is implied but may be
difficult to assess based on what is
written in the proposal.
Authenticity of the project is suspect:
perhaps it seems too contrived, oversimplified or unoriginal.
Methodology is unclear, vague or
poorly described. Feasibility cannot
easily be determined.
Methodology is inappropriate, unsafe
or unfeasible given the expertise of
the participants and the time
available.
Collaboration is implied but there may
be insufficient “face-time” between
the student and the mentor.
Sub Score (Circle One)
5
4
The proposal does not appear to be
collaborative. The project does not
appear to be mutually beneficial.
3
2
1
Exemplary (2 pts each)
Proposal
Outcomes
Budget
Overall
Impressions
Score
Adequate ( 1 pt each)
Outcomes will include a legitimate
“scholarly product” of the mentor.
Opportunities for presentation or
publication in professional outlets by
the student and/or mentor are likely.
Probability of producing scholarly
product is less than certain.
Scholarly outcomes are unlikely.
Perhaps the work will satisfy program
or course requirements (i.e. this is
more like a classroom assignment
rather than a scholarly product
The supply budget is completely
justified given the methodology and
purpose of the project. Additional
resources are available if the needs of
the project exceed available funds.
Budget items for travel to present are
matched with departmental/college
or personal funds.
Budget is not fully justified or
insufficient to cover the costs of the
project. Success of the project
depends on acquiring additional
funds.
The budget includes frivolous or
unnecessary items or includes
requests for travel to present results
without matching funds.
The proposal and supporting
documents are written as
professional documents, they are
well-organized and carefully
prepared
Application materials reflect
insufficient attention to writing style
and mechanics (grammar, spelling,
typographical errors)
Application documents give the
appearance of being prepared hastily.
Numerous distracting elements are
observed.
6
5
Sub Score (Circle One)
4
3
Comments
Overall
General Comments:
Overall Score
22 possible
Deficient (0 pts each)
2
1