HBCU-MD2 STEM Scholarship Application Review & Scoring Rubric

Review Instructions

Please evaluate each section of the application using the scoring criteria provided. Scores range from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent). Provide specific comments to support your ratings.

Scoring Scale:

5 - Excellent: Exceeds expectations in all areas
4 - Very Good: Exceeds expectations in most areas
3 - Good: Meets expectations
2 - Fair: Below expectations in some areas
1 - Poor: Does not meet expectations

Applicant Information

Applicant Name *

Enter the full name of the applicant being reviewed

Application ID / Banner ID

Degree Program *

M.A.T. (Master of Arts in Teaching) M.Ed. (Master of Education) MBA (Master of Business Administration) MSN (Master of Science in Nursing)

Reviewer Information

Reviewer Name *

Reviewer Email *

Review Date *

Section 1: Academic Qualifications

Evaluate the applicant's academic background, GPA, and educational achievements.

Academic Performance (GPA, Academic Record) *

Consider undergraduate and graduate GPA, academic honors, relevant coursework

5 - Excellent (3.9-4.0 GPA, outstanding academic record) 4 - Very Good (3.7-3.89 GPA, strong academic record) 3 - Good (3.5-3.69 GPA, solid academic record) 2 - Fair (Below 3.5 GPA or inconsistent record) 1 - Poor (Weak academic record)

Relevant Academic Preparation *

Evaluate the alignment between undergraduate degree and proposed graduate program

5 - Excellent (Highly relevant undergraduate major and coursework) 4 - Very Good (Strong relevant preparation) 3 - Good (Adequate relevant preparation) 2 - Fair (Limited relevant preparation) 1 - Poor (Minimal relevant preparation)

Comments on Academic Qualifications

Provide specific comments about the applicant's academic strengths or concerns

Section 2: Essay #1 - Academic and Career Goals

Evaluate the clarity, feasibility, and impact of the applicant's academic and career goals.

Clarity and Specificity of Goals *

5 - Excellent (Clear, specific, well-articulated goals) 4 - Very Good (Clear and specific goals) 3 - Good (Reasonably clear goals) 2 - Fair (Vague or unclear goals) 1 - Poor (No clear goals articulated)

Alignment with Graduate Program *

5 - Excellent (Strong alignment with program) 4 - Very Good (Good alignment with program) 3 - Good (Reasonable alignment) 2 - Fair (Limited alignment) 1 - Poor (Poor or no alignment)

Potential Impact on Profession and Community *

5 - Excellent (Exceptional potential for significant impact) 4 - Very Good (Strong potential for meaningful impact) 3 - Good (Reasonable potential for impact) 2 - Fair (Limited potential for impact) 1 - Poor (Minimal or no articulated impact)

Writing Quality (Organization, Grammar, Clarity) *

5 - Excellent (Exceptional writing quality) 4 - Very Good (Strong writing quality) 3 - Good (Adequate writing quality) 2 - Fair (Below expectations for graduate level) 1 - Poor (Significant writing issues)

Comments on Essay #1

Section 3: Essay #2 - Research, Apprenticeship, or Clinical Experience Interest

Evaluate the applicant's understanding of research/professional opportunities and their potential contribution to the field.

Specificity and Feasibility of Research/Experience Interest *

5 - Excellent (Specific, well-researched, highly feasible) 4 - Very Good (Specific and feasible) 3 - Good (Reasonably specific and feasible) 2 - Fair (Vague or questionable feasibility) 1 - Poor (No specific interest identified)

Understanding of Field and Current Issues *

5 - Excellent (Deep understanding of field) 4 - Very Good (Strong understanding) 3 - Good (Adequate understanding) 2 - Fair (Limited understanding) 1 - Poor (Minimal understanding)

Potential Contribution to Field *

5 - Excellent (Exceptional potential for contribution) 4 - Very Good (Strong potential for contribution) 3 - Good (Reasonable potential) 2 - Fair (Limited potential) 1 - Poor (Minimal potential)

Comments on Essay #2

Section 4: Essay #3 - Overcoming Challenges and Support Needs

Evaluate the applicant's self-awareness, resilience, and ability to identify and seek support.

Self-Awareness and Authenticity *

5 - Excellent (Highly self-aware, authentic, reflective) 4 - Very Good (Self-aware and authentic) 3 - Good (Reasonably self-aware) 2 - Fair (Limited self-awareness) 1 - Poor (Lacking self-awareness)

Problem-Solving and Resilience *

5 - Excellent (Demonstrates strong problem-solving and resilience) 4 - Very Good (Good problem-solving abilities) 3 - Good (Adequate problem-solving) 2 - Fair (Limited problem-solving skills) 1 - Poor (Minimal problem-solving ability)

Understanding of Support Resources *

5 - Excellent (Clear understanding of needed support) 4 - Very Good (Good understanding of support needs) 3 - Good (Adequate understanding) 2 - Fair (Limited understanding) 1 - Poor (Minimal understanding)

Comments on Essay #3

Section 5: Letters of Recommendation

Evaluate the quality and strength of the letters of recommendation.

Quality and Strength of Recommendations *

Consider specificity, enthusiasm, and credibility of recommenders

5 - Excellent (Strong, detailed, enthusiastic recommendations) 4 - Very Good (Positive, supportive recommendations) 3 - Good (Adequate recommendations) 2 - Fair (Weak or generic recommendations) 1 - Poor (Very weak or concerning recommendations)

Comments on Recommendations

Section 6: Overall Assessment

Leadership Potential *

5 - Excellent (Strong evidence of leadership ability) 4 - Very Good (Good leadership potential) 3 - Good (Some leadership qualities) 2 - Fair (Limited leadership evidence) 1 - Poor (No leadership evidence)

Commitment to STEM Education/Field *

5 - Excellent (Exceptional commitment demonstrated) 4 - Very Good (Strong commitment) 3 - Good (Adequate commitment) 2 - Fair (Limited commitment) 1 - Poor (Minimal commitment)

Likelihood of Program Completion *

5 - Excellent (Very likely to complete successfully) 4 - Very Good (Likely to complete) 3 - Good (Should complete with support) 2 - Fair (Concerns about completion) 1 - Poor (Significant concerns)

Total Score

This field automatically calculates the total score based on all sections above

Score Interpretation Guide

70-80 points: Highly Recommended - Exceptional candidate
60-69 points: Recommended - Strong candidate
50-59 points: Acceptable - Good candidate with some reservations
40-49 points: Not Recommended - Significant concerns
Below 40: Do Not Recommend

Final Recommendation *

Overall Summary and Justification for Recommendation *

Provide a comprehensive summary of your evaluation and justify your final recommendation

Additional Comments or Concerns

Optional: Note any additional information that should be considered