c Scholarship Rubric Report Aplicant's Name First Last Date MM slash DD slash YYYY Undergraduate GPA0.0-1.92.0-2.52.6-3.03.1-4.0Academic and Professional GoalsLists no specific academic or professional goals.Lists both academic and professional goals. Both are keeping with the goals of the grant. Academic goals will lead to professional goals. Goals are not specific, or don’t project past the immediate future.Lists both academic and professional goals. Both are in keeping with the goals of the grant. Academic goals will lead to professional goals, which are specific for the immediate and more distant future.Goals are listed, but vague. Academic goals may not lead to professional goals.Plans for conducting research and/or conference presentationsGeneral topics are given, but no specific plans.Specific topics are listed, but no specific plans for presentations or publishing.Specific and relevant topics are listed. Plans for presentation are given, but are vague.Specific and relevant topics are listed. Plans to prepare and publish are discussed for research, or specific conference possibilities are given. Elaboration on why this topic was chosen.Why you should be selected to receive this scholarshipVague response with no specific reason. Poor grammar or punctuation.Response includes at least two reasons why candidate should be chosen. Reasons are good and specific.Response includes at least two reasons why candidate should be chosen. Reasons are good and specific. Candidates differentiate themselves from others. Response shows passion. Good grammar and punctuation.Recommender’s evaluation of academic abilityPoor or "Unable to evaluate"AverageGoodSuperior or ExcellentRecommender’s evaluation of professional qualificationsPoor or "Unable to evaluate"AverageGoodSuperior or ExcellentRecommender’s evaluation of leadership abilityPoor or "Unable to evaluate"AverageGoodSuperior or ExcellentRecommender’s evaluation of oral communication abilityPoor or "Unable to evaluate"AverageGoodSuperior or ExcellentRecommender’s evaluation of written communication abilityPoor or "Unable to evaluate"AverageGoodSuperior or ExcellentRecommender’s evaluation of commitment to complete a graduate degree programPoor or "Unable to evaluate"AverageGoodSuperior or ExcellentRecommender’s evaluation of ability to work effectively with othersPoor or "Unable to evaluate"AverageGoodSuperior or ExcellentRecommender’s assessment of academic ability, professional qualifications, potential for success. . . .Recommender addresses two or fewer of the qualifications, or gives a poor evaluation of more than one qualification.Recommender addresses all qualifications, mentions STEM areas, and specifically states candidate would do well in at least two areas.Recommender addresses all qualifications, mentions STEM areas, and provides a high recommendation for the candidate in all areas.Recommender addresses all qualifications listed and recommends applicant. Δ
