How Global Program Proposals Are Evaluated

Proposed global programs are evaluated through two complementary rubric reviews: an academic/college review and an Office of Global Opportunities (OGO) review. Each review considers defined criteria, assigns ratings, and applies category weights to produce a score out of 100 points. The reviews help inform decisions about academic merit, student benefit, feasibility, and responsible program delivery. Proposal scoring is distinct from the separate assessment of OGO staff workload and portfolio capacity.

How scoring works

Reviewers rate each criterion on the scale specified for their review. Scores are weighted so that criteria contribute different amounts to a 100-point total. The spreadsheet identifies the following recommendation bands for each review:

  • 85–100 points: Approve
  • 70–84.99 points: Revise
  • Below 70 points: Not approved

These are rubric-generated recommendations, not guarantees that a program will be offered. In the OGO review, a rating of 1 or 2 on a health, safety, and risk-management criterion automatically disqualifies a proposal from moving forward, regardless of total score.

College review: Academic Value and Strategic Alignment (100 points)

Each college will have a Dean's Designee who is responsible for reviewing program proposals and scoring based on college goals and priorities.  They will confer with college leadership to make financial decisions as well.  

College reviewers use a 0–5 rating scale: 5 exceptional, 4 strong, 3 adequate, 2 weak, 1 poor, and 0 not addressed.

Program Overview and Strategic Rationale — 40 points

  • Strategic alignment (10): alignment with institutional and college priorities 
  • Location-based and experiential learning (10): meaningful use of the host setting 
  • Curricular value and student impact (10): contribution to academic pathways and student outcomes
  • Career readiness integration (10): intentional career-related learning

Program Leadership and Contingency Planning — 25 points 

  • Leadership qualifications (10): preparation and suitability of program leaders 
  • Student support capacity (5): ability to meet student needs 
  • Regional expertise (5): familiarity with the host region 
  • Succession and contingency plans (5): continuity if leadership changes 

Academic Design — 35 points 

  • Course alignment and learning outcomes (10): coherence of coursework and objectives 
  • Experiential learning integration (10): learning through activities and engagement 
  • Academic feasibility and structure (10): realistic and workable course design 
  • Reflection and assessment (5): opportunities to evaluate and consolidate learning 

OGO Review: Delivery, access, and risk (100 points) 

OGO reviewers generally use a 1–5 rating scale: 5 excellent, 4 strong, 3 acceptable, 2 not convincing, and 1 unacceptable. Leadership experience is rated using a corresponding scale from extensive experience (5) to no experience (1). 

Program Basics, Overview, and Rationale — 20 points 

  • Adds a distinct opportunity rather than duplicating existing offerings 
  • Intentionally connects coursework to the host location 
  • Intentionally incorporates career readiness 

Program Leadership and Contingency Planning — 15 points 

  • Leaders have experience supporting students outside the classroom 
  • At least one leader has experience in the host location 
  • A backup leader could transition effectively if needed 

Academic Design — 15 points 

  • Participation prerequisites are reasonable 
  • Place- or community-based experiential learning is integrated 
  • Program structure can adapt to travel-related uncertainty 

Student Access and Recruitment — 15 points 

  • Creates opportunities for students not already served 
  • Includes a viable recruitment plan 
  • Reduces barriers to participation 
  • Physical demands are reasonable 

Program Design and Logistics — 15 points 

  • Destinations and community connections strengthen learning 
  • Program incorporates alumni involvement

Health, Safety, and Risk Management — 20 points

  • Destination security profile is acceptable 
  • Housing and transportation arrangements support safety
  • Entry and exit requirements are achievable 
  • Planned activities fit institutional risk tolerance and insurance guidelines

Using the results

Reviewers record comments alongside their scores to identify strengths, concerns, and recommended revisions. Results are considered together with college priorities and OGO workload capacity when developing the annual portfolio.