Criteria | Weight | Excellent | Good | Needs Improvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alignment with Program Objectives | 30% | Fully aligns with multiple objectives; highly innovative. | Aligns with one or more objectives; somewhat innovative. | Weak alignment with objectives or lacks innovation. |
Feasibility & Plan | 20% | Detailed, clear, and realistic implementation plan. | Plan is somewhat clear; timeline is feasible. | Lacks clarity or feasibility in the plan. |
Impact & Significance | 20% | Strong potential to impact retention, equity, or engagement. | Moderate potential for impact. | Limited potential for meaningful impact. |
Assessment & Evaluation | 15% | Clear and robust metrics for evaluation. | Metrics are somewhat clear and sufficient. | Lacks clear or meaningful evaluation methods. |
Budget Justification | 15% | Budget is fully justified and cost-effective. | Budget is reasonable but could be clearer. | Budget is unclear or inappropriate. |
Bonus Criteria (Optional):
Submitted proposals will be reviewed by a committee of faculty and staff using the criteria above. This academic year, the review committee consists of the following individuals: