|
Excellent |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Unacceptable | |
Scholarly Merit | Proposal displays originality, strong scientific reasoning, superior understanding of relevant sociological or biological principles, and clearly states scientific value of study. | Proposal displays originality, sound scientific reasoning, good understanding of relevant sociological or biological principles, and states scientific value of study. | Proposal displays originality, some scientific reasoning, basic understanding of relevant sociological or biological principles, and suggests scientific value of study. | Proposal unoriginal, lacks adequate scientific reasoning, ignores relevant sociological or biological principles, or shows no evidence of scientific value. |
Completeness | All requested materials are present and clearly presented. Proposal contains all information required to make an informed decision | All requested materials are present and clearly presented. Proposal contains all information required to make an informed decision | All requested materials are present and clearly presented, but leaves us wishing we could ask the candidate a few questions. | Any requested materials are absent, or unclear. |
Feasibility | Project is demonstrably feasible. Study design shows excellent attention to logistical concerns, and a clear understanding of what is required for success. | Project appears feasible. Study design shows consideration of logistical concerns, and addresses what is required for success. | Project is probably feasible. Study design may require more future attention to logistical concerns. | Proposal is unrealistic. |
Need | Applicant clearly states the impact that the award will have upon research goals. Award will enable study. | Applicant states the impact that the award will have upon research goals. Award will enhance study. | Applicant states the impact that the award will have upon research goals. Award may enhance study. | Applicant fails to state why award is needed. |