Register

UC Santa Barbara

July 8th – 11th, 2019

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Review Criteria

The following criteria are used by the Speaker Selection Committees to evaluate proposals for each track. Successful proposals demonstrate excellence under some criteria, though many successful proposals do not achieve high scores under all five criteria. During the first review of proposals, committee members will score proposals on a 1-5 ranking in each of these 5 categories.  Proposals are graded with both a total score and a score for each section.  Committee members can also share comments/questions on the proposals.  These scores influence the next stage of review, but are not used exclusively to make decisions on proposals. 

    1. Relevance to Topic(s)/Award Categor(ies)
      Is this project a good fit for our conference? Is it relevant to the topic area(s) it is proposed for?
    2. Ability to Inspire Action and Strategic Value
      Are you inspired after having read this proposal? Are you excited to learn more about it? Would it be strategic for upcoming statewide policies or new initiatives for this proposal to be presented at this year’s conference?
    3. Ability to Translate to all four systems of higher education in California
      Is it relevant for higher education institutions in California? Can the project being discussed be implemented on other campuses around the state or is it particular to the region where the project was developed? Will it be translatable to private, CCC, CSU, and UC campuses? 
    4. Innovation and Originality
      Is this project new? Do the proposers attempt to push the edge of what is possible? Does it go beyond what has been done before?
    5. Systems Thinking Approach
      Does this best practice help us achieve our goal of pairing topics and using a systems thinking approach? Are a wide variety of stakeholders or departments involved? Does this best practice help us understand the interconnected nature of the issues presented?
    6. Quantifiable Sustainability Impact
    7. Community Collaboration
    8. In what ways did the project encourage engagement of many stakeholders?