Exemplary (5-4)
Fair (3-2)
Inadequate (1-0)
Enhancement of the educational offerings of the university in the fields of international relations, peace, or the United Nations.
The proposal clearly describes the ways in which the project aligns with the Savage Endowment for International Relations and Peace.
The proposal includes some elements related to the Endowment but could be strengthened.
The proposal is lacking in connection to the Endowment.
Focuses on: particulars of the Palestine/Israel conflict; explore its historical, social, cultural, economic, ecological and other roots; situate Israel/Palestine in comparative perspective; develop ideas and approaches that promote peace and an end to intergenerational violence in the region; and can be submitted as suggestions to international organizations that seek to promote peace (such as the United Nations).
The proposal provides an excellent articulation of the focus of the project and makes a throughline between the specific content and international organizations that seek to promote peace.
The proposal provides some description of the ways in which the project connects with international organizations that seek to promote peace but could be strengthened in the description of the focus.
The proposal does not connect the content and project with international organizations that seek to promote peace.
Capacity of the individual or organization to complete the project through co-creation by faculty and students.
A very strong team of faculty and student collaborators have co-created the proposal and describe thoroughly their plan for event organization.
The faculty and student team adequately describe how they will co-create and co-organize the event.
The proposal does not clearly articulate the co-creation of the proposal by students and faculty nor their organizational plan for the event.
Includes scholars and practitioners to visit the UO and share their expertise.
The proposal includes a thorough list of scholars and practitioners to be invited who directly connect to the project focus, peace, and shared principles.
The proposal describes some of the scholars and practitioners and the connections to the project focus.
The proposal is lacking in specifics of who will be invited or the ways in which their focus is connected to the overall project.
Impact on the lives and scholarship of UO students, faculty, and community.
It is very clear how a large number of students would benefit either directly or indirectly from the proposed project.
A moderate number of students will benefit from the project.
The number of students who would benefit directly or indirectly is small OR localized.
Description of adherence and application of shared principles on educational events on Israel/Palestine.
Thoroughly describes the application of the shared principles – both which ones and how they will be applied during the project.
Minimally describes applications of the shared principles and alignment to the project.
Does not include or describe ways in which the shared principles will be applied.
Experiential Learning component.
The proposal includes a significant student learning component to enhance the student experience.
The experiential education component is included, but could be increased for greater impact.
The experiential education experience is lacking or underdeveloped.
Budget narrative and justification align with event described impact.
The funding request and description of the funds are appropriate and very well aligned with the project size and scope.
The budget is clear and mostly matches the project description.
The budget is underdeveloped or the narrative and funds do not match described activities.
Project itinerary and description.
Clear vision of the project and enough detail to help the committee have confidence it will be successfully implemented.
Either the vision or the details are not well enough described for the committee to feel confident in successful completion of the proposed project.
Both the vision and details are poorly described. The committee is unclear of what the project would actually entail.
Overall quality of the proposal, including whether the applicant followed the directions.
The submission is of high quality with all components well-constructed.
The submission is good, but may be lacking in some elements.
The proposal is not well constructed.