Assistantships

Keep in mind that you are concurrently assessing the project’s merit and the student’s potential learning experience—a question of fit and a plan for success. In addition to the criteria below, we encourage you to take holistic considerations into account.

Questions to Consider
  • Do the student and mentor have a strong working relationship or plan to develop their ability to collaborate?
  • Does the student have ownership of the proposed work or state objectives that will enable them to engage their field?
Proposals supported by strong working relationships
  • show students and mentors “on the same page”
  • outline appropriately scaled projects with a reasonable plan
  • accurately communicate contributions to the larger field

Review Criteria

Context & Objectives

The proposal's objectives are clearly positioned within the "bigger picture" of the disciplinary frame or wider context.

Method & Strategy

The proposal clearly explains the methodology and/or strategy to achieve meaningful outcomes and objectives.

Scale & Scope

The proposal achieves meaningful learning outcomes in the award period without interfering with regular coursework and extracurricular obligations, including a timeline of activities.

Relevance

The proposal advances the student’s academic goals and/or professional aspirations.

Scoring Scale

You have some concerns about the project moving forward.
  • 1. Poor
  • 2. Marginal
  • 3. Fair
You're confident about the project moving forward but see potential for improvement.
  • 4. Satisfactory
  • 5. Good
  • 6. Very Good
You're very confident about the project moving forward and see little to no potential for improvement.
  • 7. Excellent
  • 8. Outstanding
  • 9. Exceptional

Back

Review Board

Celebrating 40 Years

CU Boulder has an expansive history engaging undergraduates in the research and creative life of the campus dating to the creation of UROP in 1986.