REAP
The application will be reviewed by the directors of the Hamel Center and the University Honors Program, as well as a third individual appointed by these directors. An application may receive a maximum of 30 points from each reviewer.
Criteria
|
Points
Possible
|
|
Quality of the 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?
|
|
- Is the project manageable and appropriate for the 10-week time frame?
|
|
|
Quality of the “Student Applicant Statement of Interest” Essays
|
10
|
- Are the essays well developed and written clearly?
|
|
- Does the student exhibit enthusiasm for the REAP experience?
|
|
- Does the student have a sound understanding of what the REAP research activities will entail? Is the student prepared for engaging in the REAP experience?
|
|
- Do the student essays articulate a clear relationship between the REAP project and the student’s academic goals?
|
|
|
Appropriateness of the Budget
|
5
|
|
|
|
- Is it clear why the items are necessary to the project?
|
|
|
Faculty Recommendation and Honors Course Instructor Nomination
|
5
|
- 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 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
