Blugold Commitment
Differential Tuition 2011-12
Reviewer Professional Development Workshop
October 18, 19, 20, 2010
Stephanie Jamelske
Jeremy Miner
Mike Wick
836-2320
836-5514
836-2033
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Workshop Overview









Blugold Commitment Differential Tuition
BCDT Reviewers and Milestones
Proposal Deadlines and Review Timelines
Review Process
Proposal Guidance, Features, Budget Considerations
Review Tips
Reviewers Do’s and Don’ts
Examples of Comments
Questions
Blugold Commitment
Differential Tuition

Enhance the distinctive UW-Eau Claire experience




Financial Assistance
Provost-led initiatives
High-impact practices
High-impact practices






Research and scholarly activity
Immersion experiences
Internships
Practicum
Learning and teaching
Innovative projects
BCDT Reviewers

You will work independently and as a committee (3
students and 2 faculty/academic staff) to objectively
assess each application’s strengths and weaknesses.

Your task is to rank all of the proposals, distinguishing
the most promising ones from those that are good and
those that have little potential.

You are acting as the conscience of the community,
ensuring that funds are invested wisely.
BCDT Milestones

Chancellor’s formal invitation


Proposal Workshop




September 3, 2010 – campus-wide email
September 14, 2010 – 35 attendees
September 15, 2010 – 25 attendees
September 16, 2010 – 15 attendees
Informal Proposal Discussion Drop-In




September 21, 2010 – 6 attendees
September 22, 2010 – 8 attendees
October 8, 2010 – 19 attendees
October 11, 2010 – 16 attendees
Proposal Deadlines

Before October 13, 2010


October 13, 2010


Faculty and staff should consult with and submit proposals to
their chairs or directors
Department chairs and unit directors submit proposals to
their respective dean, AVC, AC, VC or Chancellor
October 25, 2010

Deans, AVC, AC, VC and Chancellor prioritize proposals
and submit a ranked list along with proposals to the Provost
Review Timeline

November 1-10, 2010


November 15-26, 2010


Student Senate first reading of BCDT Spending Plan
January 24, 2011


Funding Analysis Committee recommendations to Student Senate
December 6, 2010


Categorical Review Committees review proposals and rank
Student Senate second reading and vote on BCDT Spending Plan
Week of January 24, 2011

BCDT award notifications sent via email
Review Process

Proposals distributed for review by October 29

Read proposals independently by November 1




Note strengths, weaknesses, questions
Consider a possible ranking
Be prepared to discuss
Review all proposals as a committee by November 10



Be on time for committee discussions
Rank proposals
Develop written comments
Proposal Guidance

Format


8 pages total
12 point font, 1.5 inch line spacing

Proposal Type

Forward looking
Budget Class
 Matches sum for first year

Project Category



Only one can be selected
Follow guiding questions
Proposal Features



Project Summary
Project Background
Project Narrative



Objectives
Methods
Project Assessment



Evidence
4 year graduation
LELOs
Budget Considerations

Budget Summary


Budget Detail


One per year
Year 1 only
If funded



Rebudgeting?
Carry over?
Guaranteed?
Review Tips

You are not judging people

You are not judging departments/colleges

You are not judging how you’d do the project

You are not judging proposals against each other
Reviewer Don’ts






Make disparaging remarks about an application
Provide comments that are vague
Ask questions in your commentary
Contact applicants during the review process
Let only the budget drive ranking considerations
Use information external to the proposal
Reviewer Do’s






Read proposals independently
Be analytical and unbiased
Participate fully in the discussion and ranking
Provide constructive comments
Keep in mind that most applicants invested a
great deal of effort into preparing proposals
Aim to provide feedback that will assist:


Applicants to know what they did right
Applicants to know how they might improve
Levels of Commentary

Content and Organization – has all of the
requested information been included?

Clarity – is the narrative clear and persuasive?

Mechanics – is the narrative free from errors in
grammar, spelling, and punctuation?

Design – does the narrative look inviting to read?
Examples of Comments
Unhelpful Feedback
Helpful Feedback
 It’s a great proposal
 The applicant
identifies two specific
 I like it
outcomes
(X
and
Y)
 This should be funded
and systematically
 Nice assessment plan
describes how they
 I’ve heard really good
will be accomplished
things about this prof
and assessed. This
 This project will really
project will have a
help the department
significant impact on
student learning.
Examples of Comments
Unhelpful Feedback
Helpful Feedback
 This project doesn’t
 The narrative would
make any sense
benefit from including
specific details such as
 A waste of money
X, Y, and Z, which
 Spelling mistakes
will
lend
to
a
better
were distracting
understanding of the
 The table is confusing
true impact this
 Their other
project can have on
application was better
students and learning.
Your Questions?
Thank you for your service