The Madison Initiative for Undergraduates took a meaningful step forward Friday when the Madison Initiative Student Board and Madison Initiative Oversight Committee presented their reviews and ratings for the first 27 accepted proposals to the chancellor and provost.

Of the 27 accepted proposals submitted before the Oct. 1 deadline, 19 primarily focused on student services or other enhancements, while eight others requested faculty lines. Two of the initial proposals did not make it to either of the oversight boards and were returned for further development and resubmission.

The oversight boards divided the proposals into four initial categories ranging from those considered very good, adequately meeting all the relevant criteria and extremely well developed, to those that might have had something interesting but for a variety of reasons needed further development before they could be accepted, according to Aaron Brower, vice provost for teaching and learning.

According to Chancellor Biddy Martin, the committees recommended several proposals be approved and implemented while a number of others be revised and resubmitted.

Martin said she hopes to make final decisions about which proposals would be implemented immediately and which would be recommended for resubmission sometime this week.

“We will move ahead quickly with several proposals, seek answers to our questions in other cases, and request major revisions in still others,” Martin said in an e-mail to The Badger Herald.

Martin added she is keeping in mind they will receive even more proposals in November and wants to commit long-term funding only to those that are strong and meet a serious need.

One such proposal in Chair of the Madison Initiative Student Board Tyler Junger’s eyes is a proposal that would initiate a shared notes system for student advisors.

According to this specific proposal, the lack of such a system has been one of the greatest impediments to improving student advising.

“Currently, as students progress on campus, usually seeing multiple advisors in a variety of schools, colleges and departmental advising offices, there is no shared advising history of the students they see,” the proposal said.

Junger said he was amazed there is not already such a system present on campus and thought this proposal would likely be most beneficial to students.

One proposal that received particular attention at the meeting focused on enhancing students experience in introductory biology.

This particular proposal would create a peer-mentored and faculty advised first-year seminar in biology to increase college competency and preparedness for new biology students.

The proposal would also seek to enhance teaching and learning across the introductory biology sequence and create a community amongst biology teachers and learners.

One proposal that did not make the initial cut was a LGBT experiential learning course. It was sent back because it would only be available to about 20 students per semester and would cost an inordinate amount of money, Junger said.

In general, Brower said this round of proposals were very specific to the initial goals set out for the initiative, namely opening bottleneck courses, enhancing student advising and expanding need-based financial aid.

He added he expects to see proposals that are somewhat more comprehensive and creative looking toward the long-term future of the undergraduate experience.

Brower also responded to rumors that all the Madison Initiative revenue will be spent in the first couple of competitions and if proposals are not received by the next deadline on Nov. 15, the opportunity to access the funds will be lost.

“This will not be the case,” Brower said. “I think people are always worried that money will be spent before they can get access to it, but we’re going to be very deliberate with how this money is spent.”

Martin commended both the Madison Initiative Student Board and Oversight Committee for taking each proposal seriously and analyzing them in depth. She said in general the Madison Initiative Student Board was often even more critical than its faculty counterpart.