UROP Project Rubric
All UROP Project applications are reviewed by members of the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Council (UROC) and/or ad hoc faculty reviewers from UHM based on the criteria shown in the UROP Project Rubric below. Once the application evaluation and scoring are complete, the sum of all scores will be divided by 8 (the total number of criteria) to create an overall score on a 4.0 scale (note that the two Project Mentor Form scores will be averaged prior to the final summation and score calculation). All required components must be included for application funding consideration.
Criterion/ Score | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Description (WHAT) | The objective is clear and understandable to those outside the field | The objective is sufficiently clear and understandable to those outside the field | The objective is somewhat clear and understandable to those outside the field | The objective is not clear and understandable to those outside the field | No Description |
Significance (WHY) | Importance and relevance to the field are clearly justified | Importance and relevance to the field are sufficiently justified | Importance and relevance to the field are somewhat justified | Importance and relevance to the field are not justified | No Significance |
Process / Methodology (HOW / WHERE) | Process/methodology is clearly defined and appropriate for the project to meet the objective | Process/methodology is sufficiently defined and appropriate for the project to meet the objective | Process/methodology is somewhat defined and appropriate for the project to meet the objective | Process/methodology is not defined and appropriate for the project to meet the objective | No Process / Methodology |
Timetable (WHEN) | Timetable is clearly justified and feasible | Timetable is sufficiently justified and feasible | Timetable is somewhat justified and feasible | Timetable is not justified and feasible | No Timetable |
Applicant’s Role (WHO) | Applicant’s role will clearly facilitate a positive learning outcome for the applicant | Applicant’s role will sufficiently facilitate a positive learning outcome for the applicant | Applicant’s role will somewhat facilitate a positive learning outcome for the applicant | Applicant’s role will not facilitate a positive learning outcome for the applicant | No Applicant’s Role |
Budget | Projected items and expenses are clearly justified | Projected items and expenses are sufficiently justified | Projected items and expenses are somewhat justified | Projected items and expenses are not justified | No Budget |
Project Mentor Form: Mentorship Plan (Section 2) | Mentorship Plan clearly outlines a supportive mentor committed to the student and project completion | Mentorship Plan sufficiently outlines a supportive mentor committed to student and project completion | Mentorship Plan somewhat outlines a supportive mentor committed to student and project completion | Mentorship Plan does not outline a supportive mentor committed to the student and project completion | No Mentorship Plan |
Project Mentor Form: Project/ | Evaluations clearly show mentor’s support of the student and reflect high quality of the proposed project | Evaluations sufficiently show mentor’s support of the student and reflect good quality of the proposed project | Evaluations somewhat show mentor’s support of the student and reflect moderate quality of the proposed project | Evaluations do not show mentor’s support of the student and reflect poor quality of the proposed project | No Project Evaluation |
GPA | The scoring for grade-point average (GPA) utilizes the 4.0 scale for the applicant’s cumulative academic record including all transfer credits. | ||||