9,102
edits
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
<tr><td>text here</td></tr> | <tr><td>text here</td></tr> | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;"> | <p style="max-width:70em !important;">Scoring Explanation:</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this particular application.</p> | |||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;"> | <p style="max-width:70em !important;">Score of 1 – The application poses a '''weak''' explanation for the request. There is little explanation of what the funding request is for or how the outcomes might benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;"> | <p style="max-width:70em !important;">Score of 2 – The application poses a '''reasonable''' explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. The outcomes would benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;"> | <p style="max-width:70em !important;">Score of 3 – The application poses a '''strong''' explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. Additionally, it includes a strong explanation for significance, innovation, and approach. The outcomes directly benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON and the individual’s personal trajectory towards promotion and tenure.</p> | ||
<p style="max-width:70em !important;"> |