Applications are reviewed under 5 areas. Points are awarded based on how well the application addresses each area. A higher score denotes a more successful application. You may find it helpful to review these criteria as you plan your application. For additional information, please see the UROP home page.

  • 4 points: The topic is recognized as substantial by people who are knowledgeable in the field. The proposal provides either in the problem identified, the methodology employed, or the mode of interpretation, a recognizable contribution to the field.
  • 3 points: The topic is recognized as appropriate by people who are knowledgeable in the field. the proposal provides either in the problem identified, the methodology employed, or the mode of interpretation, a limited contribution to the field.
  • 2 points: The topic is recognized as minor by people who are knowledgeable in the field. The proposal provides either in the problem identified, the methodology employed, or the mode of interpretation, little contribution to the field.
  • 1 point: The topic is recognized as trivial by people who are knowledgeable in the field. The proposal provides either in the problem identified, the methodology employed, or the mode of interpretation, no recognizable contribution to the field.
  • 4 points: The methodology is appropriate and innovative.
  • 3 points: The methodology is appropriate and interesting but may indicate a need for more careful planning.
  • 2 points: The methodology is appropriate and acceptable but may indicate a need for more careful planning.
  • 1 point: The methodology is inappropriate and unacceptable.
  • 4 points: The research project is clearly understood by the student. A clear relationship exists between the topic and existing information in related areas of knowledge. The proposal is firmly rooted in disciplinary foundations.
  • 3 points: The research is to some extent understood by the student. A questionable relationship exists between the topic and existing information in related areas of knowledge. The proposal is rooted in disciplinary foundations.
  • 2 points: The research project may be understood by the student. An ambiguous relationship exists between the topic and existing information in related areas of knowledge. The proposal drifts from its disciplinary foundations.
  • 1 point: The research project is not understood by the student. No logical relationship exists between the topic and existing information in related areas of knowledge. Disciplinary foundations are not evident or are misused.
  • 4 points: The extent of the proposed study is eminently reasonable in terms of time and resources available. A clear indication exists that the student has considered and made provisions for each of the demands implicit within the study.
  • 3 points: The extent of the proposed study is moderately reasonable in terms of time and resources available. An indication exists that the student has considered and made provision for some of the demands implicit within the study.
  • 2 points: The extent of the proposed study may be reasonable in terms of time and resources available. An unclear indication exists that the student has considered and made provision for each of the demands implicit within the study.
  • 1 point: The extent of the proposed study appears unreasonable in terms of time and resources available. There is little or no indication that the student has considered and made provisions for each of the demands implicit within the study.
  • 4 points: The appearance of the document is professional and clean. The proposal is free from grammatical and typographical errors. All intellectual or creative aspects of the proposal are included and complete.
  • 3 points: The appearance of the document is pleasing. The proposal includes occasional grammatical and typographical errors. Most intellectual or creative aspects of the proposal are included and complete.
  • 2 points: The appearance of the document is acceptable. The proposal includes troublesome grammatical and typographical errors. Some significant intellectual aspects of the proposal are absent or incomplete.
  • 1 point: The appearance of the document is unacceptable. Grammatical and typographical errors appear in unacceptable numbers and intensity. Gross intellectual or creative aspects of the proposal are absent or incomplete.