Specific Notes:

These notes are keyed to the Evaluation Guidelines Form and to the Draft Resolution Template.

• "Approved" resolutions:
  • Minor errors of punctuation could be, and were, corrected
  • There were no revisions needed for language or phrasing
  • Resolution meets the standards on the Evaluation Guidelines Form sheet.
• " Re-submit after making Changes" resolutions:
  • Errors of punctuation could not be easily remedied;
  • Errors related to language and phrasing are too extensive and require revision;
  • The operative clauses are not ordered from general to specific;
  • Headings such as "whereas" are used incorrectly;
  • Resolutions are printed on school or country letterhead;
  • Resolutions do not have the appropriate signatures;
  • The content of the resolution does not meet the criteria in the "content" section of the evaluation checklist, in one or two ways that can be corrected;
  • Faculty reviewers should specify the shortcomings for the student.
• " Not approved" Resolutions:
  • Contain too many errors of punctuation and grammar to be easily corrected;
  • Fail in multiple ways to satisfy the criteria of the "Context" section of the evaluation form;
  • Are not related to the agenda topics (bearing in mind that there is some latitude in this area);
• All corrections which need to be made should be noted on the evaluation form for students and, if complex, on the actual resolution.
• "Working Group" resolutions:
  • Resolutions are very similar in the nature of the operative clauses;
  • Debate would be indistinguishable between two proposed resolutions;
  • Debate could be improved and the learning experience increased if resolutions were combined;
  • The countries of the working group must be identified on the Evaluation Form
• ALSO:
  • Faculty reviewers should print their name legibly on the evaluation forms;
  • Faculty reviewers should be available to discuss their suggestions with the students who submit the draft resolutions.