Honors

A graduate may earn Honors, High Honors, or Highest Honors in the major by:

• Demonstrating excellence in major coursework
• Completing a scholarly research project or an applied community/professional project
• Completing an oral defense of the project before a faculty committee of at least three members

The project and oral defense must be in addition to what is required by the major.

Eligibility

• 3.0 QPA in all courses (University of Lynchburg and transfer credits) for the baccalaureate degree.
• 3.5 QPA in all major courses (University of Lynchburg and transfer credits).

COHS Honors, High Honors, and Highest Honors Designations

• A student is eligible for Honors if he or she earns a 3.5 QPA or above in all major courses
• A student is eligible for Honors or High Honors if he or she earns a 3.6 QPA or above in all major courses
• A student is eligible for Honors, High Honors, or Highest Honors if he or she earns a 3.7 QPA or above in all major courses

These QPAs must be achieved at the end of the semester preceding the final semester of matriculation.

A student eligible to compete for Major Program Honors should apply to the particular school dean no later than October 1 (for January graduates) and February 1 (for May and August graduates). Application forms are available on the Office of the Registrar’s forms webpage.

School of Medicine and Health Sciences

The University of Lynchburg COHS recognizes excellence in major coursework and a faculty-chaired, written project with an oral defense as the appropriate Honors format for our College.

Students must submit a proposal by the end of the 3-week withdrawal period of the student’s final semester, which includes:

• Project plan, including a timeline of important dates and milestones
• Identification of the intended audience
• Type of project
• Dissemination of information. Participation in the Student Scholar Showcase is strongly encouraged.

The written project and oral defense must be in addition to what is required by the major.

Student Honor Committee

The student’s honors project will be evaluated by a committee of at least three University of Lynchburg faculty. The committee chair will come from the student’s discipline. A second member will come from the COHS. One committee member must come from outside the COHS and can include community or professional stakeholders outside the University of Lynchburg. Students are responsible for procuring committee members.

Honors Awards Criteria

The rubric below should be used as the guiding framework in the determination of Honors, High Honors, and Highest Honors. A student who attains Honors will typically receive a rating of at least satisfactory (4) on each of the dimensions below; a student who attains Highest Honors will receive almost all outstanding ratings (6) on the dimensions below, with no ratings below a 5.

(Adapted from Augusta University Honors Thesis rubric)

1. Research question/issue/creative challenge presented within academic framework

Unacceptable

Marginal

Satisfactory

Outstanding

1

2

3

4

5

6

Research question/issue/creative challenge not identified, or inaccurately or inadequately represented Goals/objectives/hypotheses are vague or incomplete Historical context, assumptions/biases, and/or ethical considerations are lacking or underdeveloped Thesis not presented/inadequately presented within academic and/or creative framework Thesis connection to appropriate local, national, global or civic issue(s) is lacking or underdeveloped

Research question/issue/creative challenge identified and summarized Goals/objectives/hypotheses are clear Historical context, assumptions/biases, and/or ethical considerations are present/developed Thesis presented within academic and/or creative framework Thesis connection to appropriate local, national, global or civic issue(s) is present/developed

2. Methodology/approach appropriate to disciplinary/interdisciplinary focus

Unacceptable

Marginal

Satisfactory

Outstanding

1

2

3

4

5

6

Methodology/approach missing, incomplete, insufficiently detailed, or inappropriate Procedures standard to the discipline are not followed consistently Relevant interdisciplinary considerations are underdeveloped or missing Topic minimally situated among sources and materials cited

Methodology/approach is appropriate and detailed Procedures standard to the discipline are followed consistently Relevant interdisciplinary considerations are displayed and developed Topic clearly contextualized among sources and materials cited

3. Supporting evidence and/or creative background

Unacceptable

Marginal

Satisfactory

Outstanding

1

2

3

4

5

6

Evidence and/or creative background inadequately discussed Evaluation, analysis, and synthesis are limited Evidential support for argument &/or use of creative background is selective or inadequate Fact v. opinion not well distinguished; potential bias(es) are ignored or not recognized Perspectives are limited

Evidence and/or creative background thoroughly and intelligently discussed Sufficiently evaluates, analyzes, and synthesizes information and/or creative background Amount and quality of evidence and/or creative background is sufficient Evidence and/or creative background used relevantly and accurately; potential bias(es) identified Multiple perspectives considered

4. Conclusions, implications, and consequences

Unacceptable

Marginal

Satisfactory

Outstanding

1

2

3

4

5

6

Conclusions, implications, and/or consequences lacking, or conclusions are loosely related to consequences or implications Significance of what was discovered, learned, or created is unclear Assertions are unqualified or unwarranted Appropriate connections to local, national, global or civic issue(s) are lacking; ramifications of work not discussed

Conclusions, qualifications, and consequences, including value of thesis, are presented and well developed Significance of what was discovered, learned or created is clear Assertions are qualified and well supported Connections to local, national, global, or civic issue(s) discussed; ramifications of work presented and discussed

5. Writing

Unacceptable

Marginal

Satisfactory

Outstanding

1

2

3

4

5

6

Language obscures meaning/unclear in places and/or lacks appropriate eloquence Grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors are distracting or repeated Work is unfocused Organization is clumsy or mechanical Sources not cited or not used correctly

Language clearly and effectively communicates ideas and is appropriately nuanced and eloquent Writing errors are minimal Writing and organization are clearly focused Organization is clear and effective Sources and citations used correctly

6. Oral presentation

Unacceptable

Marginal

Satisfactory

Outstanding

1

2

3

4

5

6

Introduction is not clear and/or is unwieldy Presenter mumbles and/or mispronounces key words Presentation is not well-organized and difficult to follow Presenter was unprepared to present to the audience

Introduction is interesting and engaging Speech is clear and articulate Presentation is well-organized and easy to follow Media and format are appropriate for content Presentation appropriately represents the project

7. Student demeanor and performance

Unacceptable

Marginal

Satisfactory

Outstanding

1

2

3

4

5

6

Student often resisted reasonable feedback and/or failed to make suggested revisions Student often failed to meet deadlines determined by the HP and the panel Student often failed to work independently and/or required significant oversight Student failed to maintain contact with his or her panel (e.g., regarding meetings and significant changes and/or progress on his or her project) Student failed to react maturely to challenges and adversity

Student was receptive to reasonable criticism and made revisions accordingly Student consistently met deadlines determined by the HP and the panel Student performed research/scholarship and wrote, revised, and edited with reasonable independence Student maintained appropriate contact with his or her panel (e.g., regarding meetings and significant changes and/or progress on his or her project) Student reacted maturely to challenges and adversity