Graduate Students’ Association
Professional Development Grant/Group Project Grant: Evaluation Criteria
Fall Deadline: Friday, November 6, 2015
Winter Deadline: Friday, March 4, 2016
*Successful applicants are eligible for up to $750.00 of funding (PDG) or $1500 (GPG).
Please note that if the total amount of funding requested by applicants exceeds the amount available to us, we
will not be able to fund every eligible applicant.
Questions regarding this application should be directed to:
The GSA Awards Chair: [email protected]
Evaluation system for Group Project Grants / Professional Development Grants
A.
Benefit
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
to career (6 points)
6 points: Essential to applicant’s future carer
5 points:
4 points:
3 points: Helpful, some benefit to applicant(s)
2 points:
1 point:
0 points: No obvious benefit to applicant(s)
B.
Grammar/Composition (3 points)
i.
3 points: Very few grammatical errors, well written
ii.
2 points: Some grammatical errors and/or confusing layout
iii.
1 point: Major grammatical errors and/or poorly written (no attention to detail)
iv.
0 points: Difficult to decipher
C.
Overall
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
appeal of the project (5 points)
5 points: Extremely appealing
4 points:
3 points:
2 points: Low-to-moderate appeal
1 point:
0 points: Unappealing
D.
Budget
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
(5 points)
5 points:
4 points:
3 points:
2 points:
Well laid out, no errors in calculation, steps taken to minimize burden
Well laid out, minimal errors, steps take to minimize burden
Some errors and/or little effort to minimize burden
Major errors and little effort to minimize burden
v.
vi.
1 point: Major errors and/or no effort to minimize burden
0 points: Incomplete
E.
Quality
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
of the meeting/conference (3 points)
3 points: International conference/meeting
2points: National conference/meeting
1 point: Provincial conference/meeting
0 points: Local (same city) conference/meeting
F.
How critical is the PDG funding? (3 points)
i.
3 points: Critical
ii.
2 points:
iii.
1 point:
iv.
0 points: Not needed
G. Originality (1 point)
i.
1 point: Original
ii.
0 points: Not original
H. Completeness of the application (1 point)
i.
1 point: The application is completed filled out
ii.
0 points: One or more non-optional fields are not filled out correctly
I.
Reviewer recommendation (3 points)
i.
3 points: Reviewer highly recommends this application for funding
ii.
2 points: Reviewer recommends this application for funding
iii.
1 point: Reviewer is OK with funding but does not recommend
iv.
0 points: Reviewer does not recommend this application for funding
Margo M. Husby Memorial Scholarship evaluation
Margo M. Husby was a professor in the former department of Communications & Culture who cultivated original
thought, personal growth, and giving back to community. After her passing in 2013, the GSA created the Margo M.
Husby scholarship to be awarded to the most deserving PDG application in each of the Fall and Winter intakes. This
award is a $1500.00 named scholarship (including the $750.00 from the PDG, not in addition to) which is given to
the winning students at the Recognition of Excellence event at the end of the Winter semester. This award is to
support the values which Margo M. Husby cultivated during her career: students’ personal and professional growth,
community mindedness, and original thought.
With that in mind, would you recommend this application for consideration for the Margo M. Husby scholarship?
(This value will not be used in determining whether or not the application receives PDG funding.)
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
4 points: Strongly recommend – this project is original, allows personal/professional
development, and has the potential to strengthen or give back to the community.
3 points: Highly recommend – this project is original and allows for personal/professional
development. Immediate potential to strengthen or give back to the community is not obvious.
2 points: Recommend – this project allows for personal/professional development. The project is
not original and the immediate potential to strengthen or give back to the community is not
obvious.
1 point: Do not recommend – this project has a limited ability to allow for personal/professional
development.