Criteria for Review of Applications

REAP >>
URA and SURF USA >>
IROP and SURF Abroad >>

 

REAP

Each application is reviewed by at least three UNH faculty members drawn from a range of disciplines and colleges. An application may receive a maximum of 30 points from each reviewer.  Applications will be evaluated using the following criteria:

Criteria

Points

Possible

Quality of the Apprenticeship Proposal

10

  • Is the proposed project well defined, with clear learning objectives and potential educational value for the student?

 

  • Is the proposal complete and detailed? Are all parts clearly explained in accordance with the proposal outline?

 

  • Does the project timetable provide sufficient details of activities to be carried out by the apprentice? 

 

  • Is there a detailed and clearly articulated mentoring plan?
 
  • Is the project manageable and appropriate for the 10-week time frame (i.e., anticipating 10 weeks of full-time research/apprenticeship)?
 

 Quality of the Student’s Project Understanding and Statement of Interest

12

  • Are the student’s answers well developed and written clearly?

 

  • Does the student demonstrate a sound understanding of the proposed REAP project and what the research activities will entail? 

 

  • Is the student prepared for engaging in the REAP experience?  

 

  • Does the student exhibit enthusiasm for the REAP experience?
 
  • Does the student articulate a clear relationship between the REAP project and his/her academic goals?

 

Appropriateness of the Budget

2

  • Is the budget itemized?

 

  • Is it clear why the items are necessary to the project?

 

Faculty Recommendation and Fall Course Instructor Nomination

6

  • Does the student demonstrate good potential for planning and carrying out the proposed research activities in the time period allowed? 

 

  • Does the student have both academic abilities and personal qualities that will enable him/her to undertake a successful summer research apprenticeship? 

 

TOTAL

30

URA and SURF USA

The Hamel Center’s Faculty Advisory Committee reviews all applications. Each proposal is read by at least three faculty reviewers drawn from one of the following two general areas of study: 1) departments in COLSA and CEPS, and 2) departments in COLA, CHHS, and Paul College.  An application may receive a maximum of 25 points from each reviewer.

Criteria

Points

Possible

Quality of the Proposal

12

  • Is the proposal well written, well defined, convincing?

 

  • Is the proposal complete? Are all parts clearly explained in accordance with the proposal outline?

 

  • Is the proposal understandable to a general, educated reader who is not a specialist in the proposed research field?
 
  • Is the project manageable and appropriate for the time frame?

 

Qualifications of the Applicant

5

  • Are the qualifications, preparation, and experience of the student
    adequate for carrying out the project?

 

Appropriateness of the Budget

2

  • Is the budget itemized?

 

  • Is it clear why the items are necessary to the project?

 

Faculty Recommendation(s)

6

  • Past or present experience supervising the student in coursework, research, or independent work.

 

  • Preparation of the student to undertake the project in the time period allowed.

 

  • Significance of the project and its potential educational value for the student.

 

  • Relationships between the student’s project and the faculty mentor’s own research, scholarly, or creative work or areas of expertise.

 

TOTAL

25

IROP and SURF Abroad

Members of the Hamel Center’s Faculty Advisory Committee review all applications. Each proposal is read by at least three faculty reviewers, drawn from the appropriate colleges/departments. An application may receive a maximum of 100 points from each reviewer.

Criteria

Points

Possible

Quality of the Proposal

 

  • Research question(s) stated clearly

10

  • Proposal demonstrates careful preliminary investigation of project background, including necessary bibliography

10

  • Feasible plan and clear disciplinary approach to answering research question(s) is presented

10

  • Clear rationale for why research should be conducted at proposed site

10

  • Project is safe

10

Qualifications of the Applicant

 

  • Student possesses sufficient background/preparation to conduct the research (sufficient background in the discipline, as well as the emotional and intellectual maturity to conduct research abroad)

10

  • Student has necessary language skills to conduct the research

5

  • Plan for cultural preparation is in place

5

Appropriateness of the Budget

 

  • Budget is reasonable

10

Mentor Commitment

 

  • UNH mentor commitment to student and project is in place and documented

10

  • Foreign mentor is in place and documented

10

TOTAL

100