lborder Cal Poly Pomona Logo   Evaluation Instructions Click here to print this content.


Criteria as stated in Appendix 26:

  1. Professional benefits to the applicant and university
  2. Merits of the proposal
  3. Qualifications of the applicant
  4. Quality of expected outcomes

Use the following questions to determine how well each application meets the criteria:

  1. How will the proposed leave benefit the applicant professionally? Will the leave benefit the campus (students, department, school/college, university) either directly through tangible results such as new or improved courses or indirectly through a renewed enthusiasm for teaching and the discipline?
  2. Is the proposal well organized and easy to understand given that the Committee is composed of faculty from various disciplines? Does the project seem realistic and worthwhile relative to #1 above?
  3. Does the applicant have experience in the area covered by the proposal? If the applicant does not have previous experience in the specific area of the proposal, does he/she have experience in a related area or has he/she expressed an interest in and justification for learning about the proposed topic
  4. What quality outcomes has the applicant identified? For example, (1) new teaching methods, (2) conference presentations, (3) publications, (4) increased understanding of a particular topic, (5) renewed enthusiasm for teaching, (6) new or expanded courses, (7) new experiences that lead to a broader perspective, etc.

Determine an overall score, based on a holistic combination of the above:

Score of 5: The application is strong in all 4 criterion areas. There are clear benefits to the applicant and the campus. The proposal is meritorious. The applicant is highly qualified. There are several specific expected outcomes.

Score of 4: The application is strong in 3 out of the 4 criterion areas but is somewhat lacking in the 4th area.

Score of 3: The application is not very strong. There is evidence to support 2 out of the 4 criterion areas. There is some evidence for the other 2 areas.

Score of 2: The application satisfies only 1 area. There is some evidence for the other 3 areas.

Score of 1: The application is very weak. None of the 4 areas are fully addressed.