Ask an honors committee for a review, not a stamp

A proposal sent for honors should ask the committee to hunt defects. A rubber stamp request hides the work they are supposed to do.

2 min read

Honors proposals die in two ways. The committee never reads them. Or the committee says "looks strong" and the defense is the first time anyone hunts a hole. You cannot fix the first from a message. You can refuse the second by asking for a review.

This is not a guarantee of admission, funding, or a grade. It is the ask that treats the committee as reviewers.

Review, not blessing

A review hunts defects in something already built. A decision would be "admit this student." You may need that later from a different form. This message is: please break section 2 of the proposal.

Use the same bones as a technical design review. Scope โ€” the research question and methods, not the life story. Kind of read โ€” is the question answerable in the time, is the method ethical on its face, is the claim bigger than the data. Time cap you name, so they are not discovering a line-edit. Date after which you will submit the version you have.

Tell them a list of problems is the success case. Praise is optional and not the point.

Send a proposal they can attack

Write the question in one sentence. Write the method in a short block a cold reader can follow. Write the one assumption you are least sure of, labelled. If your assistant inferred a feasibility claim from a paper you have not read, cut it or mark it.

Do not mix this with a collaboration ask. Credit and defects in one letter get you a polite stall on both.

One ask per person if the committee does not have a shared inbox. A bundle of "anyone who has time" is how nobody owns the hour.

You approve what they see

Draft the briefing. Read it as a faculty member who has twelve of these. Confirm the send. A proposal under your name is not auto-mailed.

Members without accounts get email and a link. Members who already have accounts need an accepted contact.

No attachments. The full proposal lives in the campus system the committee already uses. The briefing is the review ask and the section you want broken.

Nicknames stay private unless you share them. Use the names on the committee list.

If someone blocks you, the block is silent. Submit on the date you named.

When the section is small enough to break in the time you offered, connect your assistant and ask for defects โ€” not a stamp.

Frequently asked questions

What should I ask the committee to return?
A review: specific problems in a named section, ordered by how much they matter, by a date you will actually use. 'Looks good' is a failed review.
Do committee members need RelayLink accounts?
No. Each can receive email and a link. If someone already has an account, you need an accepted contact with that person.
Is this the same as asking for a collaboration?
No. [A collaboration request](/learn/academic-collaboration-requests) proposes joint work. This is a review of work you already drafted. Do not mix credit and defects in one ask.