AIEA Conference Proposals Assessment/Recommendation Rubric

Thank you again for your time and for serving as a reviewer. All proposals will be read by at least three committee members.

If there is strong disagreement over a proposal, we may ask a fourth member of the committee to review.

Comments: 
In addition to the numeric scale below, please provide comments for each proposal that you read. Even for the highest and lowest scores, please explain why you ranked them low or high. For example, you may rank a proposal low because you think a proposal is good but the content would not be of interest to SIOs.

As you read, please keep in mind that we would like:

  • Proposals representing a variety of institutions and presenters, including non-US perspectives and smaller schools. Please be sure to flag/note proposals that have presenters from only one institution, which is only acceptable for roundtable sessions.  
  • To avoid any proposals that are focused on “selling/advocating” a particular service/product/program 
  • To avoid any proposals that feature solely a “show and tell” 
  • Proposals that cover sub-categories. If you read two or more proposals that cover the same or similar topic, please write this in a comment and state which of the proposals is stronger.
  • Proposals that are more interactive in nature, beyond "talking heads" (meaning that there should be substantial time reserved for discussion and Q&A) – and remember there should be a maximum of 3 presenters/speakers including the Chair if the Chair is presenting. (It is acceptable for the Chair to serve as moderator with three presenters as long as there is no formal presentation by the Chair). 
As an additional point of reference, a standard/panel proposal that earns a 4 rating should meet all of the following criteria: 

1.  Highly relevant to Senior International Officers/University Leaders 
2.  Highly relevant to conference theme/subthemes
3.  Strategic-level content for SIOs
4.  Diversity of perspectives (except in the case of roundtable proposals) – gender, institutional, national, etc.
5.  SIOs as presenters/quality of presenters (panels should have at least one Senior International Officer) 
6.  Degree of proposed interaction with attendees
7.  Beyond “show and tell”
8.  No promotion of service/product/program/company
9.  Beyond a US centric perspective
10. Overall  high quality of proposed session (given all the above criteria)

  

As an additional point of reference, a roundtable session proposal that earns a 4 rating should meet all of the following criteria:

1.  Highly relevant to Senior International Officers/University Leaders 
2.  Highly relevant to conference theme/subthemes
3.  Strategic-level content for SIOs
4.  High quality of discussion questions proposed
5.  No promotion of service/product/program/company
6.  Beyond a US centric perspective
7.  Facilitator(s) ideally represents an SIO perspective
8.  No evidence of a formal presentation (note: No formal presentation is desired - this should be an entirely discussion-based session that facilitates maximum participation from all attendees)
9.  Overall  high quality of proposed session (given all the above criteria)


Evaluation Rating: Scale 1-4 (1 is Lowest and 4 is Highest)
1. Do not accept (explain reasons) 
2. Probably do not accept but there is some aspect of the proposal that is of interest and could possibly be combined with another proposal or re-structured (explain) 
3. Conditional acceptance, either with moderate changes (explain changes) or if there aren’t any other similar proposals that are stronger 
4. Absolutely accept (explain reasons)