Graduate Student Prize Evaluation Rubric
The application includes the scholarly work itself and a cover letter, and is evaluated using the criteria below. The total possible score is 33 points.
Cover Letter (24 points)
Significance of Topic
Application Prompt: Please briefly explain your scholarly topic and its significance to your field. Please also share how your scholarship aims to bring a new point of view to your discipline. Examples may include (but are not limited to) how the work addresses historical or methodological biases, challenges assumptions in your field, or incorporates underexplored perspectives.
Significance of topic (3 points)
Accomplished
3 points
Applicant clearly explains the topic in an understandable way for a non-expert.
Applicant makes a strong case for the significance or originality of the work.
Competent
2 points
Applicant provides an explanation understandable for a non-expert, but lacks some clarity.
Applicant indicates some significance or originality, but with insufficient detail or an incomplete argument.
Basic
1 point
Applicant does not explain the topic in an understandable way for a non-expert.
Applicant points to little or no significance or originality.
None
0 points — Applicant does not describe the significance of their topic.
Brings a new point of view to the discipline (3 points)
Accomplished
3 points
Applicant provides a clear, specific, and compelling explanation of how the work aims to bring a new point of view to the discipline.
Applicant shows deep critical engagement and provides concrete examples.
Competent
2 points
Applicant provides an explanation of how the work aims to bring a new point of view to the discipline, but generally takes a familiar path.
Applicant explains general strategies or examples that lack specificity.
Basic
1 point
Applicant provides a vague or incomplete explanation of how the work aims to bring a new point of view to the discipline.
Applicant does not provide examples.
None
0 points — Applicant does not describe how their topic aims to bring a new point of view to the discipline.
Potential for Real-World Impact
Application Prompt: What are the potential or actual real-world applications of your scholarship? Examples may include (but aren’t limited to) impacting culture, arts, social well-being, policy, practice, education, or community driven initiatives. How might your work help address real-world problems, reduce disparities, or promote broader societal benefit?
Real-world applications (3 points)
Accomplished
3 points
Applicant clearly articulates specific, feasible and meaningful real-world applications.
Applicant provides concrete examples.
Competent
2 points
Applicant explains general real-world applications with some clarity and relevance.
Applicant provides general applications or examples that lack specificity.
Basic
1 point
Applicant explains vague applications, but shows limited understanding of how the work translates to the real world.
Applicant does not provide examples.
None
0 points — Applicant does not describe real-world applications for their scholarship.
Addressing real-world problems, reducing disparities or promoting societal benefit (3 points)
Accomplished
3 points
Applicant provides a clear, insightful and compelling explanation of how the work addresses real-world problems, reduces disparities or promotes broader societal benefit.
Applicant demonstrates excellent understanding of the real-world problem, disparities or societal benefit the work addresses.
Competent
2 points
Applicant provides a relevant but general explanation of how the work addresses real-world problems, reduces disparities or promotes broader societal benefit.
Applicant demonstrates some understanding of the real-world problem, disparities or societal benefit the work addresses, but response may be unclear or overly broad.
Basic
1 point
Applicant provides a vague or superficial explanation of how the work addresses real-world problems, reduces disparities or promotes broader societal benefit.
Applicant demonstrates limited understanding of the real-world problem, disparities or societal benefit the work aims to address.
None
0 points — Applicant does not describe how the scholarship addresses real-world problems, reduces disparities, or promotes broader societal benefit.
Use of the Library
Application Prompt: How did your use of the library deepen and extend your scholarly inquiry? Did you engage with any specific resources, services or people in the library, and how did these interactions enhance your work?
Use of UC Davis Library resources and services (6 points)
Accomplished
5–6 points
Applicant identifies multiple research tools and investigative techniques relevant to the inquiry.
Applicant provides specific examples of tools and techniques used.
Applicant engages with various library resources, services or approaches unique or appropriate to the discipline.
Competent
3–4 points
Applicant identifies some research tools and investigative techniques, but omits others relevant to the inquiry.
Applicant provides some specific examples of tools and techniques used but offers general/vague descriptions elsewhere.
Applicant engages with some library resources, services or approaches, but omits others unique or appropriate to the discipline.
Basic
1–2 points
Applicant identifies use of basic tools only, such as the VPN and library catalog.
Applicant does not include specific examples of tools used or techniques employed.
Applicant does not engage with library resources, services or approaches unique or appropriate to the discipline.
None
0 points — Applicant does not describe use of UC Davis Library resources and services.
How library resources and services deepened, extended or enhanced the work (6 points)
Accomplished
5–6 points
Applicant clearly articulates how the library resources and services deepened, extended or enhanced the work.
Applicant provides multiple examples of how library resources and services supported, changed or shaped their process.
Competent
3–4 points
Applicant provides an incomplete or unclear explanation of how the library resources and services used deepened, extended or enhanced the work.
Applicant provides only one example or does not provide sufficient detail of how library resources and services supported, changed or shaped their process.
Basic
1–2 points
Applicant provides limited explanation of how the library resources and services deepened, extended or enhanced the work.
Applicant provides no specific examples of how library resources and services supported, changed or shaped their process.
None
0 points — Applicant does not describe how library resources and services deepened, extended or enhanced their work.
Scholarly Work (9 points)
Clarity and quality of composition (3 points)
Accomplished
3 points
The work is polished and of sophisticated quality for the discipline and medium.
Key concepts, themes or findings are well organized and effectively communicated.
If the work is written, it is clear and free of errors.
Competent
2 points
The work is generally well done and appropriate quality for the discipline and medium, but may lack polish.
Key concepts, themes, or findingss are present and understandable but organization or clarity may be inconsistent.
If the work is written, it is mostly clear and coherent, with minor errors that do not interfere with comprehension.
Basic
1 point
The work demonstrates limited understanding of the discipline and medium and lacks refinement.
Key concepts, themes or findings are unclear or poorly organized, making comprehension difficult.
If the work is written, it lacks clarity and contains consistent errors that negatively affect comprehensibility.
Execution (3 points)
Accomplished
3 points
Applicant effectively conveys the project’s central question, argument, thesis or conceptual framework.
The significance of the topic and real-world applications are evident in the work and in line with those stated in the applicant’s Cover Letter.
Competent
2 points
Applicant conveys the project’s main question, argument, thesis, or conceptual framework, but may be underdeveloped.
The significance of the topic and real-world applications can be reasonably drawn from the work, but may not achieve those that are stated in the applicant’s Cover Letter.
Basic
1 point
Ineffective, inconsistent, or nonexistent project question, argument, thesis or conceptual framework.
The significance of the topic and real-world applications are not evident in the work and/or are not in line with those stated in the applicant’s Cover Letter.
Integration of resources (3 points)
Accomplished
3 points
Applicant demonstrates thoughtful and critical engagement with, or selection and integration of, high-quality, relevant and diverse resources.
Resources are clearly connected to the work’s purpose and effectively used to strengthen impact, deepen insight or ask critical questions.
Competent
2 points
Applicant uses generally appropriate and relevant resources.
Resources are integrated in a way that strengthens the work, but may lack depth or clear connection to the overall purpose.
Basic
1 point
Applicant includes some resources, but they are limited in quantity, quality, relevance or diversity.
The role of resources in shaping or supporting the work is unclear or minimal.
Parts of this rubric were developed with assistance from Generative AI (ChatGPT and Microsoft CoPilot). All AI outputs were edited, reworded and reworked for relevance to this prize and its goals.