Travel Awards

Selection Requirements

• The Student Section Travel Grant Evaluation Rubric used by judges in scoring applications. To prevent any biases (especially sub-conscious) all applicant names, addresses, and any other personal information will be removed prior to distribution to judges. The applications are evaluated on the following criteria: 
  • Professional Development: The applicant must explain how attending the meeting will help his or her professional development. The applicant should express the value of the proposed travel to his or her professional development, the application should be thorough and carefully thought through. The most detailed applications presented in an organized and logical fashion will score the highest.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant provides specific details, such as topics, concepts, and issues, and clearly explains how these details are related to their professional development.
      • 4: The applicant provides specific details, such as topics, concepts, and issues, but fails to clearly explain how they are related to their professional development.
      • 3: The applicant provides a clear but general explanation of how the meeting promotes their professional development.
      • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and general explanation of how the meeting promotes their professional development.
      • 1: The meeting may be irrelevant or tangentially related to their professional development.
  • Description of Work: The applicant must explain the work that he or she will be presenting at the meeting. The applicant should explain his or her work by providing the abstract and by summarizing the work in the personal statement. Both the abstract and the summary in the application should be provided. The abstract can be geared towards a more technical audience, while the summary should explain the science and its significance in more non-technical terms.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant provides an abstract and, in the application, summarizes the work to be presented and its general significance in clear terms that non-experts can understand.
      • 4: The applicant provides an abstract and, in the application, summarizes the work to be presented and its general significance in terms difficult for non-experts to understand.
      • 3: The applicant provides an abstract and, in the application, summarizes the work to be presented but such that it mostly replicates the contents of the abstract without adding additional information to aid understanding.
      • 2: The applicant provides either the abstract only or a summary in the application only. However, whichever is provided is clearly written.
      • 1: The applicant provides either the abstract only or a summary in the application only. However, whichever is provided is not clearly written.
  • Description of Participating in Student Section Events: The applicant should describe the types of events (e.g. workshops, special sessions or other professional development events which are Student Section related) he or she plans to attend, and how it will enhance the experience of other students participating. Our list of annual meeting events can be found on our website (http://www.esastudents.org/) under the “Events” tab.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant provides specific details, such as the names of Student Section workshops or sessions they plan to attend. The applicant describes a unique perspective that they will bring to the conference and the Student Section.
      • 4: The applicant provides a clear but general description of events and the perspective they will contribute.
      • 3: The applicant provides an unclear and general description of events and/or the perspective they will contribute.
      • 2: The applicant either does not describe the event or explain their unique perspective.
      • 1: The applicant does not describe the event nor presents a unique perspective.
  • Diversity and Inclusion: The applicant should describe the ways in which their current or future work promotes diversity and inclusion, with regards to culture, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, national origin, physical or mental difference, politics, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and/or subculture, as described in ESA’s Diversity Statement. The diversity of geographic locations and/or ecology subdisciplines does NOT meet the diversity and inclusion criteria.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led- initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future and clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
      • 4: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led-initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future but fails to clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
      • 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology. 
      • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
      • 1: The applicant does not mention the work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
  • Budget: The budget must appear reasonable and realistic with regard to the amount spent on each component. Each budget item should appear as a new line item with a short justification.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The budget is clear, reasonable, and the applicant provides brief details of the amounts requested.
      • 4: The budget is reasonable and clear but lacks justifications.
      • 3: The budget is reasonable but unclear and lacks justification.
      • 2: The budget is clear but does not reflect efforts to find the cheapest alternatives (e.g. hotel prices are over $200/night).
      • 1: The budget is not clear nor reasonable.
  • Syntax and Overall Quality: The application must be clear and well written. It must be apparent that the applicant thought through each question and provided thorough, proof-read responses.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The application is well written and thorough. There are almost no syntax errors indicating a proofread application.
      • 4: The application is thorough but contains some syntax errors.
      • 3: The application is thorough but contains several syntax errors, grammatical errors, and inconsistent language.
      • 2: The application is not well written and in some areas not thorough (e.g. too short, lacking details, not logically organized).
      • 1: The application lacks thoroughness throughout and is poorly written.
  • Optional Uploads & Web Links: Bonus creativity points will be given to applicants who including optional uploads and/or links that illustrate: 1) the applicant’s work, 2) the impact and/or significance of their work, and/or 3) address any of the application questions in a creative/non-traditional way. Examples: videos that depict your work/research, social media sites used to educate the public, infographics created during a project, creative websites used to explain your work.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: Optional uploads and/or web links are original, interesting, and engaging/interactive. Applicant shows exceptional creativity.
      • 3: Optional uploads and/or web links are original and interesting. Applicant shows some creativity
      • 1: Optional uploads and/or web links has some creative elements, showing an attempt to be creative

Click here to fill out the application form!