URP Evaluation Rubric

The URP Selection Committee uses the following rubric to evaluate applications (50 points total). Applicants are strongly encouraged to review the Application Guidelines before submitting their materials.

Applications are reviewed by faculty members from a variety of disciplines across CANR. Reviewers evaluate application quality and completeness, project feasibility, anticipated student benefits, the budget and justification, and mentor support. Because reviewers may not have expertise in your specific field, applications should be written for a broad academic audience and include sufficient detail for individuals outside your discipline to evaluate the proposal.

Project Description (20 points)

Excellent (16-20 points): Provides a clear, well-developed project description that includes all required sections. The project's significance, objectives, methods, and anticipated outcomes are clearly explained, with sufficient detail to evaluate feasibility and merit.
Good (11-15 points): Addresses all or most required sections. The proposal is generally clear but lacks sufficient detail, clarity, or specificity in one or more areas.
Developing (6-10 points): Addresses some required sections but contains substantial gaps in detail or explanation. Reviewers may have difficulty understanding the project's significance, methods, feasibility, or anticipated outcomes.
Incomplete (1-5 points): Omits multiple required sections or provides insufficient information to evaluate the proposed work.

Project descriptions should be written by the student in their own words. Responses that rely heavily on boilerplate language, copied project descriptions, or text primarily authored by the research mentor will receive lower scores.

Statement of Benefits (10 points)

Excellent (8-10 points): Student clearly explains how the experience will contribute to their academic, professional, and personal development, including the skills and knowledge they hope to gain and how the experience aligns with future goals.
Good (4-7 points): Student addresses anticipated benefits but provides limited detail, specific examples, or connections to academic, professional, or personal goals.
Incomplete (1-3 points): Student provides limited discussion of anticipated benefits or makes little connection between the experience and future goals.

Plans to Present Results (5 points)

Excellent (4-5 points): Student provides a clear plan to present at UURAF and one additional venue, including the anticipated venue, presentation format, and timeline.
Good (2-3 points): Student identifies presentation opportunities but provides limited detail regarding venue, format, timeline, or one or more required presentations.
Incomplete (1 point): Student provides little or no information regarding presentation plans.

Budget (10 points)

Excellent (8-10 points): Budget follows URP guidelines and includes a clear, realistic justification for all requested expenses. Reviewers can readily determine how funds will support the proposed work. Any additional funding sources are clearly described by the faculty mentor.
Good (4-7 points): Budget generally follows URP guidelines but includes limited justification, unclear cost estimates, calculation errors, or insufficient detail regarding how funds will support the project.
Incomplete (1-3 points): Budget does not follow URP guidelines, omits a budget justification, contains significant inaccuracies, or provides insufficient information to evaluate project feasibility.

Faculty Mentor Recommendation (5 points)

Excellent (4-5 points): Mentor provides strong support for the applicant and clearly describes the student's qualifications, potential for success, and fit for the proposed project. The mentor clearly describes how they will support the student's research and professional development.
Good (2-3 points): Mentor supports the applicant but provides limited detail regarding the student's qualifications, preparation, or fit for the project.
Incomplete (1 point): Mentor provides minimal information regarding the student's qualifications or potential for success in the project.