Our Travel Grant aims to assist Purdue graduate students in
attending academic conferences
We hope this grant enhances the academic development of our awarded students and
augments the overall quality of research at Purdue
-- Funding Amount --
We offer THREE TIERS
of grant awards to account for the varying number of applications and funding from year-to-year.
The total number of awards
each month varies based on
applicant pool size and budget.
* Funded by
-- Deadlines and Review Schedule --
Please consider the following two policies to choose a submission deadline:
Our Travel Grants are reviewed once-per-month
Travel must occur 1-4 months after the submission deadline
Next Deadline: February 5, 2020
Award Notification for 12.04.19 Deadline: 01.22.20
-- Application Instructions --
Applicants MUST BE PRESENTING PURDUE RESEARCH at the conference (oral, poster, etc.)
Each Purdue graduate student may only SUBMIT ONE APPLICATION PER SEMESTER
Each Purdue graduate student may only RECEIVE ONE AWARD PER FISCAL YEAR (Summer - Spring)
Incomplete applications will NOT be considered for funding, so double-check completion prior to submission
READ EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY BEFORE APPLYING:
In order for your expenses to be reimbursed, we strongly recommend that all applicants familiarize themselves with reimbursement procedures and policies HERE BEFORE traveling or making any purchases related to the applicant’s grant application.
The PROPER DOCUMENTATION for each expense MUST be submitted in order for it to be reimbursed. As you make purchases, save your receipts and be sure those receipts contain all necessary information listed HERE.
-- Application Rubric --
There are 10 criteria (each worth 5 points) for a possible total 50 points
Criteria 1-5: Description of Research (25 Points Total)
*Zero points given to each criteria unaddressed
Description of research is understandable by a universal audience and free of subject specific jargon
Vague or unclear description. Too much jargon or assumptions of reader knowledge to understand the description.
May be lacking a few important details or include some jargon/ assumptions of knowledge, but the reader is still able to follow.
Clear and detailed description that is easy to follow.
Description of research is
brief yet contains all
Long rambling description of research to the point of distraction. May provide many irrelevant details. May be difficult to follow.
Acceptable description. May provide some irrelevant details that make the application somewhat difficult to follow.
A brief yet informative description of the research that provides the reader with the necessary information.
Research methods are
Note that methods will vary based on the field or area of research. Reviewers will score based on how well the applicant addresses this criterion,
NOT on their perceived validity of the method.
The description of the methods does not provide enough information for the reviewer to understand what the applicant did. Too much jargon may make it difficult for the reviewer to follow.
Provides information on methods but may be lacking enough detail for the reviewer to completely understand what the applicant did. May contain a small amount of jargon.
Description of methods is clear and detailed enough that the reviewer can understand what the applicant did. No jargon.
Purpose of the research is
Statement of goals is vague or hard to follow.
Statement of goals is present but difficult to follow or missing important details.
Clear statement of goals that is easy to follow and provides adequate detail.
The innovative nature of the presented work, and its larger impact on the field,
is briefly described
Note that the description of innovation may vary based on the field or area of research. Reviewers should score based on how well the applicant addresses this criterion.
Description of innovation is vague. Applicant does not make a strong argument for how the research contributes any new findings to the field or that the methods used were novel.
Description of innovation is acceptable. May be missing some important details or could make a stronger argument for innovation.
Description of innovation is strong. Based on the description, it is clear to the reviewer that this research is innovative.
Criteria 6-7: Involvement and Importance (10 Points Total)
*Zero points given to each criteria unaddressed
Description of applicant’s involvement should tell how the applicant was involved in the research; should be significant
Description of applicant’s involvement is vague.
Applicant had minimal involvement in the research.
Applicant is involved in the research. Acceptable description of involvement.
Detailed and clear description of the applicant’s involvement. It’s clear that the applicant was highly involved in the research.
Description of career impact should include details on the benefits and opportunities conference attendance
Vague description of impact. Minimal impact of the applicant’s career.
Acceptable description of impact. Description does not go beyond typical benefits (presentation/ networking).
Detailed description of career impact. The event will have a strong impact on the
Criteria 8-10: Quality (15 Points Total)
Application is organized in a manner that is logical and easy to follow
Not logically organized. Hard to read and identify were rubric criteria are being addressed. Terrible/non-intuitive flow.
Application is organized and there is a logical flow of ideas. The reader can identify where rubric criteria are being addressed.
Logically organized in a manner that is coherent and easy to follow. It is very easy for the reader to identify where rubric criteria are being addressed in the application.
Application is free of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors
The writing is full of grammar, punctuation, and spelling mistakes to the point of distraction.
The writing has some grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors but does not impact the readers’ ability to understand the writing.
Writing is free of errors.
This is a very poor application.
This application is average.
This application is among
Following scoring, reviewers will be asked to recommend a Tier Placement:
This is a poor application and should not be funded.
This application meets criteria and should be funded at $250.
This application is good and should be funded at $500.
This application is excellent and should be funded at $750.