UC Santa Barbara

July 8th – 11th, 2019

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Overall Process

Speaker Selection Committees review proposals in several stages:

  1. Individual Review: All committee members read and grade each proposal using the five categories below. Committee members will also take into account the speaker guidelines and the priorities for their topic area.  You can see those by clicking the names of topic areas on the main call for proposals page.
  2. Deliberation: Committee members discuss the proposals and their grades. During this phase, proposals are sorted into high priority, medium priority, low priority, and proposals that the committee chooses to pass on.
  3. Scheduling: At this phase, committee members will try to fit the proposals that they are most excited about into the time slots available.  This process is started with proposals that do well in the first two steps, but sometimes lower ranked proposals can be brought back to fill in gaps.

Review Criteria

The following five 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. 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?
  2. Relevancy
    Is this project a good fit for our conference? Is it relevant to the topic area(s) it is proposed for? Is it relevant to the 2018 conference theme “Data-Driven Change and Engagement”?
  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. 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 interconnectedness of the issues presented?
  5. 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?