Undergraduate Research Grants Evaluation Rubric

Evaluation Rubric

Strength of the proposed mentoring relationship

Proposed mentoring relationship Clear, well defined proposal; role of mentor clearly explained

Relatively clear proposal but lacking some definition; role of mentor is a bit vague

A number of weaknesses but scope of work is articulated; evidence of some mentoring provided

Proposal is vague and scope of work is poorly identified; no clear mentor role

Demonstrated significance of the project and merit of the work

Clearly assesses the role of the proposed project in the field

Provides some evidence of significance

Claims significance but lacks substance.

No sense of how the proposed project contributes to the field

Appropriateness of the methodology or the creative focus

Evidences clear understanding of methodology/creative focus

Methodology/creative focus is defined but not clearly

Lacks some understanding of methodology or creative focus

No evidence of methodology/creative focus

Potential for accomplishing the proposed project

Well defined budget and realistic detailed timeline

Budget and/or timeline realistic but missing some detail

Budget and/or timeline not realistic or clearly defined

Budget and/or timeline unrealistic or missing

The overall quality of the proposal