I don’t understand this Law question and need help to study.
1.I would believe to say that a grant is a lot easier to review if the grant is thorough and makes sense. By that I mean that the grant is easily understood and is able to help people looking to fund have comfort in doing so. If someone sounds professional in their writing, then it is going to be a lot more assuring that one wants to fund in a certain grant. It helps a lot to know how to write the way a fundee can interpret.
If my fund was not funded then it would be a learning curve. I play baseball and even if youre great, one will fail 7/10. I believe this has helped me to enjoy criticism because thats the only way to figure out how to get your program funded. In other words, when one fails, it is necessary to understand first why this happened. From there we can learn how to better ourselves. persevere and learn from it. I have never been the best writer, but I will always look to better my skills.
2.Professor and Class,
I believe that one way to make a grant easier to review is to make sure that it is organized and flows well that way it is easy to follow. Also make sure that it has all the major details so that the funder can get all of the important information without having to guess what things are or what you mean by a particular part. If I received notification that my grant was not funded I would do everything I could to find out why that way if possible I could fix whatever may have been wrong or confusing so that I can try again. Sadly, I think that may decrease my chances of future funding from that particular funding source. This could mean not receiving funding in general no matter how much I try or wat I change. Also, it would risking the chance that my project flops due to not being able to get project funding unless it is possible for me to try another funder that I can start fresh with.
