This rubric is designed to provide transparency in our review process for the institutionally funded student research grants managed by the Provost’s office and help applicants understand the criteria used to evaluate funding proposals.

The evaluation committee assesses each proposal based on several key factors, detailed below. This standardized approach ensures fair consideration of all submissions while identifying projects that demonstrate exceptional promise.

Applicants are encouraged to review these criteria before submitting their application to strengthen their proposals and align their research plans with program expectations.

Category	1 – Poor	2 – Fair	3-4 Good	4-5 Exceptional
Project Details	The proposal does not identify a motivating idea/problem/question, nor outline the proposed project activities. It is not clear that the student understands the work to be completed.	The proposal does not identify a motivating idea/problem/question, and/or does not outline the proposed project activities.	The proposal identifies a motivating idea, problem, and/or question and provides a general outline of project activities that includes procedures and methods.	The proposal identifies a motivating idea, problem, and/or question. It presents a clear project design with specificity about procedures and methods, including the analytic approach.
Outcomes/Learning Goals	The goals of the project are not clearly stated. Products are not described.	Project goals are referenced, but could be stated more clearly. Products are described only vaguely and/or seem unattainable.	The goals of the project are clearly stated. Products (presentations, publications, or other appropriate outcomes) are identified, but little detail is provided.	The goals of the project are clearly stated. Specific products (presentations, publications, or other appropriate outcomes) are described and seem attainable.
Challenges/Road Blocks	No challenges identified/recognized	Challenges identified, but lacking relevance or missing a large potential challenge. None or Minimal plans to mitigate identified challenges.	Challenges identified, with vague/incomplete plans to mitigate	Potential challenges identified, and clear articulation about mitigation plans to minimize them
Connection to Goals	It is unclear from the application materials how this project or subject relates to the student’s academic studies, future professional aspirations, and/or personal goals. The student’s life experience, background, and/or goals suggest the summer experience is unlikely to be transformative.	Application does not make a clear connection between the project and the student’s academic studies, future professional aspirations, and/or personal goals. The student’s life experience, background, and/or goals suggest the summer experience might be transformative.	Application explains how the work will benefit the student’s academic studies, future professional aspirations, and/or personal goals.  The student’s life experience, background, and/or goals suggest the potential for the summer experience to be transformative.	Application demonstrates significance of the project to the student’s academic studies, future professional aspirations, and/or personal goals. The student’s life experience, background, and/or goals indicate high potential for the summer experience to be transformative.
Connection to Field of Study	Sees this as a “job.” Little connection between this experience and future plans.	Mentions this opportunity as connected to major/minor	Mentions this opportunity to fill gaps in academic background; uses this opportunity to gauge “fit” with research as a profession	Understands that the question refers to professional development; describes participation on research team; mentions plans for graduate/professional school; acknowledges possible contribution to body of knowledge in the area; connects problem to possible solutions.
Mentor Collaboration	Evaluations do not show mentor’s support of the student and reflect poor quality of the proposed project	Evaluations somewhat show mentor’s support of the student and reflect moderate quality of the proposed project	Evaluations sufficiently show mentor’s support of the student and reflect good quality of the proposed project	Evaluations clearly show mentor’s support of the student and reflect high quality of the proposed project
Budget	Budget provided does not match amount requested. No narrative explanation of budget.	Mentions plans for use of award, but does not provide details of how other expenses for the project are covered.	Explanation clarifies specific use of funds, but does not describe basis for amount estimate.	Explanation clarifies specific use of funds with a clear and reasonable support for arrival at the amount requested. Amount requested is reasonable for scope of project.

Completion Materials	1-2	2-3
Transcript	no transcript provided	transcript provided
Resume	no resume provided	resume provided
Custom Question Responses	responses are minimal or irrelevant	responses are included and relevant to the prompt
References	Mentor provides very little support that indicates he/she knows applicant; uses boilerplate language as recommendation; no details on applicant’s possible contributions to project and team.	Recommender provides a positive assessment of the significance of the project and its educational value for the student. Letter includes a positive assessment of the student’s ability to undertake the project. A plan for supervision and mentorship is described.