Grant reviewing

The goal is to review proposals for preservation grants and pretend that we are a panel deciding which ones to fund. Please look at the following four proposals:

http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/unews/IMLS_grant2003.pdf.
http://anthro.amnh.org/anthropology/Grants/Textile_Grant.pdf
http://soda.sou.edu/project/Grant_Narrative.html (Budget: $470,000).
lts.brandeis.edu/research/archives-speccoll/daumier/about/grantnarrative.html (Budget: $205,097).

In many cases online proposals don't contain the budget, either because the detailed budget would disclose salary information that is better kept private, or because the detailed budget is actually not part of the normal proposal text but is submitted separately. So I've given you the total amount whenever this is not in the proposal.

Please write up not more than one half-page on each of the proposals, and rate each of them on a five-point scale (Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, and Excellent). We'll try in class to rank them, so have a view of what your ranking is.

There is no "right answer" to this assignment: I do not know which proposal is going to be selected by the class. Grading will be on what you say about the proposals rather than your ranking of them.

In real life, by the way, NSF reviewing is done by grouping 30-50 proposals together, assembling a group of 10-12 referees, and asking each of them to read about 10 proposals (each proposal is read by four people, usually) and then everybody travels to Washington for a day-and-a-half discussion.