Grant Proposal Rubric
The rubric below outlines the criteria used by reviewers to evaluate grant proposals. Applications are scored in four areas: Intellectual Merit, Broad Impact, Personal Impact and Overall Organization.
Intellectual Merit
(Background, Outcomes, Methods, Preparation)
Exceptional (15-20)
The section is very clear and easy to follow to those outside of the field. It conveys the project’s purpose and outcomes and orients the project to the greater body of literature in the field. The section references existing research and/or background influences on the proposed project. The section explains how actions will lead to the desired outcome/result.
Competent (7-14)
The section is somewhat clear but may benefit from further development. There is some explanation of the purpose or outcomes of the proposed project. The section may not be easily understood by those outside the field.
Developing (1-7)
The section is unclear and/or incomplete making it hard to follow. The section lacks reference to existing research or background influences. The section is not easily understood by those outside the field. The outcomes of the project are not clear.
Missing (0)
No content is provided.
Broad Impact
(Potential to benefit society and advance discovery)
Exceptional (8-10)
The impact of the proposed project on the field or community is well described and very clear. The section clearly explains why the project matters to those outside of the field and is understandable by a general audience. The section includes how the project will resolve (i.e., presentation, paper, exhibition, performance, etc.).
Competent (4-7)
The section describes the impact of the proposed project. The section gives some explanation of why the project matters to those outside of the field but may not be clear to a general audience. The section includes how the project will resolve (i.e., presentation, paper, exhibition, performance, etc.).
Developing (1-3)
There is little to no explanation of the importance of the proposed project. The section does not give an explanation to why the project matters to those outside of the field or is not understandable by a general audience.
Missing (0)
No content is provided.
Personal Impact
(Significant to student’s academic studies, aspirations, and personal growth)
Exceptional (8-10)
The section clearly describes the significance of the project to the student’s academic studies, future aspirations, and/or personal goals. It is clear what the student hopes to gain from the experience. The section includes a clear description of the points of curiosity from which the student is starting.
Competent (4-7)
The section includes some description of the significance of the project to the student’s academic studies, future aspirations, and/or personal goals. It may not be entirely clear what the student hopes to gain from this experience. The section includes some description of the points of curiosity from which the student is starting.
Developing (1-3)
The section does not clearly describe the significance of the project to the student’s academic studies, future aspirations, and/or personal goals. It is unclear what the student hopes to gain from this experience. The section does not describe the points of curiosity from which the student is starting.
Missing (0)
No content is provided.
Overall Organization
(Grammar, Spelling, References or Cited Influences)
Exceptional (8-10)
The proposal does not contain any misspellings or grammatical errors. The proposal is organized by section and easy to read. References or cited influences are present and correctly cited.
Competent (4-7)
The proposal is organized by section. References or cited influences are present but incorrectly cited.
Developing (1-3)
The proposal includes multiple misspellings or grammatical errors. The proposal is not organized by section or is organized in a way that diminishes its readability. References or cited influences are not present.
Missing (0)
No content is provided.
TOTAL: ___/50
