Up to 20 points may be awarded based on the likelihood that the project will contribute to knowledge within a discipline, across disciplines, or to the community at large. The potential contribution to knowledge should be considered broadly, rather than by traditional academic discipline. The essential question is ‘what impact will this project have on society?' Artistic projects, scientific research, or community improvement proposals should all be evaluated on this basis.
A maximum of 20 points may be awarded based on the practicality of the proposed schedule for completion. No preference should be given to shorter versus longer time-tables, but rather to feasibility.
Up to 20 points may be awarded based on the extent to which the proposed budget is sufficient to accomplish the project but does not reflect unnecessary expenditures. Note that the maximum amount awarded for any single Standard Grant project is $10,000 and the maximum amount per individual awarded for any Mini-Grant project is $1500. Any equipment or permanent assets acquired through an SRCI grant become the permanent property of the University.
A maximum of 20 points may be awarded based on the student's demonstrated preparation to undertake the proposed project. In addition to relevant academic preparation, life experience consistent with the project should also be considered. Such life experience might include prior research, performance, or work experience, as well as community involvement relevant to completion of the project. A student proposing a performance piece who has never performed in that medium, for example, should not earn as many points as a student who has experience in the proposed performance medium.
As many as 10 points may be awarded based on demonstrated faculty or staff commitment and ability to support the proposed project. In addition to the sponsor's willingness to supervise the project, the sponsor's expertise relevant to the proposed project should also be considered.
A maximum of 10 points may be awarded based on the perceived positive impact of the completed project on the larger community and the potential for enhancing the reputation of the University. Quality, distinctiveness, and visibility of the proposed project should be taken into account, with concerns about its feasibility or ultimate completion reflected in points awarded in other categories.
An initial assessment will eliminate from further consideration those proposals which are incomplete, were submitted late or submitted by students who are not eligible, or which are disqualified due to other factors.
Each reviewer will establish a point value per category for each proposal reviewed. The mean number of points in each category will then be calculated (mean is used to allow for different numbers of reviewers per proposal in the event a reviewer must recuse himself or herself due to conflict of interest or other reasons). A total average point value will then be calculated for each proposal.
All reviewers will meet in committee and discuss each project in the sequence of highest to lowest total average point value. Based on the discussion and on consensus, the average point value in each category may be adjusted. (This process allows for a strength or a weakness identified by only one reviewer but acknowledged by the group during discussion to be reflected in the final point value for a given proposal.) The review process continues until all eligible proposals are considered and assigned a final point value in each category. Proposals are then funded in the priority of their total point values until available funds are exhausted or proposals no longer merit further consideration.