Proposal Evaluations Report

Summary of Committee Review, Funding Recommendations, and Selected Proposals

In Fall 2024, with the inauguration of President Steven J. Tepper, Hamilton College launched the “What If” Initiative—a bold and forward-looking effort to surface creative, experimental, and visionary ideas that could shape the College’s trajectory in the 21st century. The initiative, framed around the generative question “What if…?”, encouraged faculty, staff, and students to imagine new ways to advance Hamilton’s mission and to propose ideas that fall outside traditional structures and funding mechanisms.

The “What If” Committee was charged with reviewing proposals submitted in response to this call and with recommending a subset of ideas for seed funding to support their next stage of development. This funding was not intended to fully realize final outcomes but to catalyze progress — enabling additional planning, pilot programs, or new collaborations that may be continued as a part of the next phase of aspirational design coming in the 2025-26 academic year.  

Over the course of Phase III of the “What If” Initiative, the committee received 51 proposals with a combined total budget request exceeding $49 million. Proposals were reviewed during the Spring 2025 semester, during weekly two-hour meetings of the committee. Proposals reflected a remarkable range of innovative thinking — from curricular innovations to co-curricular experiences, environmental initiatives to new forms of student and faculty engagement, and ideas that aimed to enhance community, equity, and institutional impact.

Committee Review Process

To ensure a fair and consistent review process, each proposal was assigned a lead reviewer from the committee to guide the committee’s discussion. Proposals were evaluated using a rubric published on the initiative’s Overview page, which included criteria such as creativity, alignment with Hamilton’s values, potential impact, feasibility, and long-term sustainability.

Proposals were presented and discussed in dedicated time blocks, and when additional information was needed, the committee reached out to proposers and returned to those proposals after reviewing the requested materials. A final meeting to review proposals included time to revisit any proposal where questions still existed.

Committee members with a direct role in a proposal recused themselves from related discussions.

Proposals Selected for Funding

From the 51 proposals, 19 were selected to receive seed funding. The selected proposals offer a glimpse of what is possible when we think beyond conventional boundaries and embrace innovation as a pathway to a stronger, more responsive liberal arts education.

These proposals represented over $4.5 million in collective budget requests. The committee had a total funding pool of $300,000 and ultimately recommended $218,000 to support these 19 proposals, leaving a modest remainder for future aspirational design and planning.

In prioritizing proposals, the committee focused on those that:

• Represented new or experimental ideas outside of existing programs or new approaches to existing programs that were successfully able to demonstrate how the idea could lead to being a differentiator for Hamilton;
• Addressed emerging institutional needs or opportunities;
• Has the potential to scale, replicate, or secure external support; and
• Aligned with Hamilton’s core values, including our mission, sustainability, and academic excellence.

Proposals Not Selected for Funding

Among those proposals that were not selected, we were struck by the ambition and commitment to furthering our values. Whether in the envisioning of new (or renovated) spaces, seeking support for marginalized communities, locating opportunities for improved experiences for students and employees, or mapping out new curricular initiatives, these proposals spoke to the enthusiasm and commitment of our community.  

The committee chose not to fund proposals requesting new full-time employees (FTEs), as such requests fall under separate institutional review processes. Likewise, requests for additional student worker funds were not prioritized, as most departments currently have budgetary mechanisms in place for such roles. 

A Note of Thanks

The “What If” process highlighted the creativity, imagination, and passion of the Hamilton community. The committee thanks everyone who contributed to this process—those who submitted proposals, offered feedback, served as thought partners, or inspired new directions through their questions and insights. Your willingness to think boldly and engage with the future of Hamilton made this initiative not only possible but truly meaningful.

We are especially grateful for the time, energy, and creativity of our colleagues across all areas of the College. Together, you have demonstrated that the spirit of innovation is alive and well at Hamilton, and we look forward to seeing how these ideas grow and evolve in the months and years to come.

The “What If” Committee

• Jasmine Bonilla ’28
• Isa Cardoso ’25
• Erica DeBruin
• Nathan Goodale (Co-Chair)
• Travis Hill
• Meg Bernier Keniston
• Joe Kubofcik ’25
• Lisa Magnarelli (Co-Chair)
• Koboul E. Mansour
• Lisa McFall
• Jen Mendiola
• Celeste Day-Moore
• Jerry Tylutki

Funded Proposals Other Submitted Proposals