5.0 Scholarships & Awards

The College of Graduate Studies is responsible for the delivery of merit-based graduate awards at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan campus. The College of Graduate Studies manages the application and the adjudication process for multiple merit-based award competitions that are both internal and external to the Okanagan campus. Many competitions run on an annual or other cyclical basis and students are expected to apply annually for support. The College is also responsible for assigning all internal and select external award stipends as per the specific award payment schedule.

For a comprehensive list of graduate scholarships and awards available to students at UBC Okanagan, please visit: https://gradstudies.ok.ubc.ca/tuition-awards-and-finance/award-opportunities/

Each award description includes information regarding eligibility, evaluation criteria, application procedures, nomination procedures, relevant forms and resources, and conditions for award holders where applicable.

SENATE REGULATIONS GOVERNING GRADUATE AWARDS

Senate Policy: O-200 was created to ensure fair, flexible and efficient administrative processes for student awards and associated funds.

5.1 Student Funding – Internal

The College of Graduate Studies receives a recurring funding allocation from the central University budget for the purpose of awarding merit-based scholarships to current and incoming graduate students at UBC’s Okanagan campus. Internal awards funded through CoGS include the University Graduate Fellowship, the Graduate Dean’s Thesis Fellowship, the Graduate Dean’s Entrance Scholarship and the Aboriginal Graduate Fellowship. The Dean of the College of Graduate Studies determines allocations for each Faculty on campus, and each respective Faculty determines which eligible students will receive funding. Normally, the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies reserves a portion of this funding for discretionary use.

In addition to the awards funded by the central budget through CoGS, CoGS also administers other UBC internally funded awards offered through specific faculties and donors.

5.2 Student Funding – Excellence Fund

The UBC Excellence Fund provides significant resources for initiatives that help UBC attract the best students. The College of Graduate Studies administers several awards funded by the Excellence Fund. These include the International Doctoral Fellowship, The International Four-Year Doctoral Partial Tuition Award and the Graduate Dean’s Aboriginal Entrance Fellowship.

5.3 Student Funding – Tri-Council

The College of Graduate Studies adjudicates and administers external funding for graduate students. This includes the Tri-Agency awards (NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR, Vanier).

5.4 Award evaluation, nomination & adjudication procedures

THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOLARSHIPS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP

PREAMBLE

The Scholarship and Awards Committee is a standing committee of the College of Graduate Studies Graduate Council. This committee is responsible for the fair and equitable adjudication of various awards and scholarships administered by the College of Graduate Studies.

1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  • 1.1 Adjudicate major external awards such as: Vanier CGS, Trudeau Doctoral Scholarship, Tri- Council (NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR) doctoral scholarships, Canada Graduate Scholarship – Master’s Program (CGS M).
  • 1.2 Adjudicate internal awards such as: Killam Doctoral Scholarship, Governor General’s Gold Medal, Graduate Dean’s Thesis Fellowship, Aboriginal Graduate Fellowship, CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award, and various endowment funded
  • 1.3 Report annually on scholarships and awards to Graduate
  • 1.4 Members are expected to attend adjudication meetings in person; in the event of illness or other circumstances, submission of scores by email to the Data Analyst and Awards Officer may be
  • 1.5 Members must identify any conflicts of interest prior to the adjudication and not score applications where a conflict of interest
  • 1.6 Members are bound by strict expectations of confidentiality regarding the substance of the Committee adjudication

2. COMPOSITION

  • 2.1 Members are recommended by Faculty Deans to the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies (CoGS).
  • 2.2 The Committee consists of two primary sub-committees according to Tri-Council area and additional ad-hoc sub-committees drawn from the membership of 2.3 and 2.4 as required.
  • 2.3 NSERC and CIHR sub-committee (8 committee members) School of Engineering (3) Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences (3) (not the same members as under 2.4) Faculty of Health and Social Development (2)
  • 2.4 SSHRC sub-committee (9 committee members) Faculty of Education (1) Faculty of Health and Social Development (1) (not the same members as under 2.3) Faculty of Management (1) Faculty of Creative and Critical Studies (3) Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences (3) (not the same members as under 2.3)
  • 2.5 Members normally serve for a two-year term with rotation as
  • 2.6 At the discretion of the Dean, a member may be replaced on the Committee due to non- participation.
  • 2.7 The Dean of the College of Graduate Studies serves as the Chair of the

3. EX OFFICIO MEMBERSHIP

  • 3.1 Dean, College of Graduate Studies.
  • 3.2 Associate Dean, College of Graduate
  • 3.3 Director, College of Graduate
  • 3.4 Data Analyst and Awards Officer, College of Graduate

4. VOTING RIGHTS

  • 4.1 All members have voting
  • 4.2 Ex Officio members do not have voting privileges, except in the case of 3.
  • 4.3 The Chair of the committee casts the deciding vote in the case of a committee tie

5. QUORUM

  • 5.1 Five (5) members of the NSERC/CIHR or SSHRC sub-committees respectively when meeting to determine NSERC/CIHR or SSHRC nominations to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (UBC Vancouver).
  • 5.2 Four (4) voting members from the selected sub-committee for nominations to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (UBC Vancouver) for Vanier, Trudeau, and Killam awards.
  • 5.3 Four (4) voting members from the selected sub-committee to determine internal UBC Okanagan
  • 5.4 Four (4) voting members from the selected sub-committee for adjudicating applications for other external awards not explicitly listed elsewhere in these terms of reference.

6. PROCEDURES

  • 6.1 For the purposes of reviewing individual applications, the minimum number committee members reviewing each application will three.
  • 6.2 Sub-committees will convene for adjudication as needed upon the request of the Data Analyst and Awards

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING RUBRICS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR MASTER’S AND DOCTORAL SCHOLARSHIPS AND AWARDS

COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES AWARDS EVALUATION RUBRIC – MASTER’S

You may find that your group of applications ranges broadly within your general discipline or areas of expertise, and that some applications belong to fields only loosely related to your own. We ask that you keep an open yet critical mind when reviewing applications where you might not be as familiar with the content. If you wish, you may consult colleagues in confidence regarding specific proposals.

Please submit scores and brief comments for each application.

EVALUATION CRITERIA, SCORES, AND GUIDELINES

Academic Excellence (50%)

  • The applicant’s record of scholarly engagement and scholarly achievement. Indicators may include, but are not limited to: transcripts, awards, distinctions, duration of previous studies, type of program and courses pursued, course load, and relative standing.

6 – Applicant is in all aspects outstanding
5 – Applicant, while not among the very best with respect to the entirety of those reviewed, are strong and highly competitive
4 – Applicant is good, but there are one or two weaknesses
3 – Applicant shows potential but some improvements are required2 – Applicant is below average
1 – Applicant is among the least competitive within the group reviewed

Research Ability or Potential (30%)

  • The potential of the project to advance the field of study in which it is proposed and make an original and significant contribution to knowledge;
  • The quality of the proposal with regard to its methodology, scope, theoretical framework, and grounding in the relevant scholarly literature;
  • The feasibility of the project and the likelihood that the applicant will execute the work within the proposed timeframe;
  • The quality and originality of contributions to research and development;
  • Relevance of work experience and academic training to field of proposed research.

6 – Project and applicant are in all aspects outstanding
5 – Project and applicant, while not among the very best with respect to the entirety of those reviewed, are strong and highly competitive
4 – Project and applicant are good, but there are one or two weaknesses
3 – Project and/or applicant show potential but some improvements are required
2 – Project and/or applicant are below average
1 – Project and/or applicant are among the least competitive within the group reviewed

Personal Characteristics, Interpersonal and Leadership Skills (20%)

  • The applicant’s work and leadership experience, personal characteristics, as demonstrated by the applicant’s past professional and relevant extracurricular interactions and collaborations.

6 – Applicant is in all aspects outstanding
5 – Applicant, while not among the very best with respect to the entirety of those reviewed, are strong and highly competitive
4 – Applicant is good, but there are one or two weaknesses
3 – Applicant shows potential but some improvements are required
2 – Applicant is below average
1 – Applicant is among the least competitive within the group reviewed

We strongly encourage reviewers to use the full range of scores available, including .5-point increments (with the lowest possible score being 1 and the highest possible score being 6), so as to better discriminate among proposals. Awarding too many high scores reduces the power of the endorsement. While the applications you review may not be a representative sample of all those submitted, please rank comparatively those that you are reviewing. In other words, please use each score only a few times.

In addition to a numerical score, please provide brief comments (in the comments section) explaining your assessment.

COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES AWARDS EVALUATION RUBRIC – DOCTORAL

Academic Excellence (30%)

  • The applicant’s record of scholarly engagement and scholarly achievement. Indicators may include, but are not limited to: transcripts, awards, distinctions, duration of previous studies, type of program and courses pursued, course load, and relative standing.

6 – Applicant is in all aspects outstanding
5 – Applicant, while not among the very best with respect to the entirety of those reviewed, are strong and highly competitive
4 – Applicant is good, but there are one or two weaknesses
3 – Applicant shows potential but some improvements are required
2 – Applicant is below average
1 – Applicant is among the least competitive within the group reviewed

Research Ability or Potential (50%)

  • The potential of the project to advance the field of study in which it is proposed and make an original and significant contribution to knowledge;
  • The quality of the proposal with regard to its methodology, scope, theoretical framework, and grounding in the relevant scholarly literature;
  • The feasibility of the project and the likelihood that the applicant will execute the work within the proposed timeframe;
  • The quality and originality of contributions to research and development;
  • Relevance of work experience and academic training to field of proposed research.

6 – Project and applicant are in all aspects outstanding
5 – Project and applicant, while not among the very best with respect to the entirety of those reviewed, are strong and highly competitive
4 – Project and applicant are good, but there are one or two weaknesses
3 – Project and/or applicant show potential but some improvements are required
2 – Project and/or applicant are below average
1 – Project and/or applicant are among the least competitive within the group reviewed

Personal Characteristics, Interpersonal and Leadership Skills (20%)

  • The applicant’s work and leadership experience, personal characteristics, as demonstrated by the applicant’s past professional and relevant extracurricular interactions and collaborations.

6 – Applicant is in all aspects outstanding
5 – Applicant, while not among the very best with respect to the entirety of those reviewed, are strong and highly competitive
4 – Applicant is good, but there are one or two weaknesses
3 – Applicant shows potential but some improvements are required
2 – Applicant is below average
1 – Applicant is among the least competitive within the group reviewed

PROCESS FOR SCHOLARHIP AND AWARD COMPETITIONS REQUIRING NOMINATIONS BY FACULTIES

  • Several scholarships and awards require faculty nominations. In most cases, CoGS provides each faculty with a quota of the number of nominations permitted for each competition.
  • Faculties are responsible for coordinating their internal application and adjudication process. In most cases, nominations received from the faculties will be reviewed and ranked by the CoGS Scholarship and Awards Committee.
  • Nominations for IGS students occur by the faculty in which their supervisor is appointed.

PROCESS FOR SCHOLARHIP AND AWARD COMPETITIONS REQUIRING NOMINATIONS BY GRADUATE PROGRAMS

  • Several endowed awards are only available to specific graduate programs. For these competitions, graduate programs select the awardee and forward their recommendation to CoGS.
  • CoGS confirms the nominated student eligibility
  • Eligible nominees are forwarded to Enrolment Services for further consideration.

5.5 Award Notifications

  • The student, graduate program coordinator, supervisor, and graduate administrative assistant will be notified when a student is successful in internal and select external competitions
  • Only successful applicants are notified

5.6 Award Payments

  • Internal and select external awards are typically assigned at the beginning of each term (September, January, or May.) Internal entrance awards are assigned in the first terms of entry and are normally administered in two instalments
  • Awards that include a stipend plus tuition costs are assigned three times per year at the beginning of each term (September, January, and May)
  • After every reasonable effort has been made to contact a student about their award offer, any term 1 or term 2 awards still in the offered state will be cancelled at the end of the fiscal year (March 31st).