Evaluation Rubric for URP Applications

The URP Selection Committee will use these rating descriptions to evaluate the application packet. (MAXIMUM POINTS = 38)

Project description (10 points maximum)

Student shows excellent understanding of the scope of the project. Includes problem statement, objectives, anticipated outcome and how student’s work relates to goals of mentor’s project. Description shows that student understands goals of his/her participation in the project. (7-10 points)

Statement includes original input from the student, and includes “copy and paste” from another source, such as the project grant proposal or previously published descriptions. Shows effort in describing objectives and anticipated outcome. (4-6 points)

Statement relies on “copy and paste” text described above. Little effort to include objectives, approach, anticipated outcomes.  Problem statement is vague or not closely related to mentor’s research project. (1-3 points)

Undergraduate student Waldemar Ortiz participated in fisheries and wildlife research.

Plans to present results (10 points maximum)

Clear plans to present at UURAF/Mid-Sure and additional professional meeting(s) or MSU department research event, including date(s) of event(s). Presentations are scheduled within 12 months of start and termination dates listed on student application. (7-10 points)

Mentions possible presentation events but does not provide details such as dates, event registration information, type of presentation (poster vs. oral presentation). (4-6 points)

Vague description of possible presentation. Limited to department undergraduate event only. Does not include plans for UURAF/Mid SURE within 12 months of award. (1-3 points)

Student Benefits (10 points maximum)

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. (7-10 points)

Mentions this opportunity to fill gaps in academic background; uses this opportunity to gauge “fit” with research as a profession (4-6 points)

Sees this as a “job.” Little connection between this experience and future plans. (1-3 points)

Budget (3 points maximum)

Explanation clarifies specific use of funds. Part of budget is dedicated to preparation of presentation costs (materials, travel, registration fees) OR explains that mentor will cover additional costs for presentation. (3 points)

Mentions plans for use of award, but does not provide details of how other expenses for the project are covered. (2 points)

Budget provided does not match amount requested. No narrative explanation of budget. (1 point)

Letter of recommendation from faculty (5 points maximum)

Mentor provides strong support for applicant; knows applicant from previous work experience or class performance; sees potential for applicant to continue in research, apply to graduate/professional school; mentions positive characteristics in applicant that provide a good match for project and team. (4-5 points)

Mentor uses boilerplate language in recommendation, supplemented with some detail specific to the student. (3 points)

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. (1-2 points)