FRAC Rubrics
Eleanor Lane, Nathan Deutsch, Provost's Office Travel Rubric
| Yes | No | |
| Is the proposed worked significant or important? | ||
| Is the project clearly filling a knowledge gap? | ||
| Are the proposed methods sufficient to clearly answer the project’s questions? | ||
| Are the timelines clearly defined and reasonable for the scope of the proposed work? | ||
| Will the project outcomes be effectively disseminated to broad audiences? | ||
| Does the proposed work have high probability of resulting in externally sponsored funding? |
Compensated Leave Rubric
| Yes | No | |
| Is the proposed worked significant or important? | ||
| Is the project clearly filling a knowledge gap? | ||
| Are the proposed methods sufficient to clearly answer the project’s questions? | ||
| Are the timelines clearly defined and reasonable for the scope of the proposed work? | ||
| Will the project outcomes be effectively disseminated to broad audiences? | ||
| Does the proposed work have high probability of resulting in externally sponsored funding? |
Faculty Research Fund Rubric
| Objective not met = 0 | Objective scarcely met = 1 | Objective partially met, but with significant weaknesses = 2-3 | Objective mostly met; shortcomings minor = 4 | Stellar = 5 | |
| Overall Proposal Presentation: Is the narrative no more than four pages? Is it easy to read with limited jargon? | |||||
| Narrative: Is the proposed work significant / important? | |||||
| Narrative: Is the project clearly filling a knowledge gap? | |||||
| Narrative: Are the proposed methods sufficient to clearly answer the project questions? | |||||
| Narrative: Are the timelines clearly defined and reasonable for the scope of the proposed work? | |||||
| Narrative: Will the project outcomes be effectively disseminated to broad audiences? | |||||
| Narrative: Does the proposed work have high probability or resulting in externally sponsored funding? | |||||
| References: Are the references appropriate to put proposed work in context? | |||||
| Budget: Is the budget appropriate for proposed work? | |||||
| Budget Justification: Is the budget clearly justified? | |||||
| CV: Is the researcher equipped to successfully complete the proposed work? |
Provost's Challenge Research Seed Fund
| Objective not met = 0 | Objective scarcely met = 1 | Objective partially met, but with significant weaknesses = 2-3 | Objective mostly met; shortcomings minor = 4 | Stellar = 5 | |
| Overall Proposal Presentation: Is the narrative no more than four pages? Is it easy to read with limited jargon? | |||||
| Narrative: Is the proposed work significant / important? | |||||
| Narrative: Is the project clearly filling a knowledge gap? | |||||
| Narrative: Are the proposed methods sufficient to clearly answer the project questions? | |||||
| Narrative: Are the timelines clearly defined and reasonable for the scope of the proposed work? | |||||
| Narrative: Will the project outcomes be effectively disseminated to broad audiences? | |||||
| Narrative: Does the proposed work have high probability or resulting in externally sponsored funding? | |||||
| References: Are the references appropriate to put proposed work in context? | |||||
| Budget: Is the budget appropriate for proposed work? | |||||
| Budget Justification: Is the budget clearly justified? | |||||
| CV: Is the researcher equipped to successfully complete the proposed work? |