Scoring Rubric – MASTERSFSU

HBCU-MD2 STEM Scholarship Application Review & Scoring Rubric

Reviewer Evaluation Form for 2025-2026 Application Cycle Please complete this form to evaluate and score each scholarship application. Your thorough assessment helps ensure fair and consistent evaluation of all applicants.

"*" indicates required fields

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)*

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)

Consider undergraduate and graduate GPA, academic honors, relevant coursework

Relevant Academic Preparation*

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)

Evaluate the alignment between undergraduate degree and proposed graduate program

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*

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)

Consider specificity, enthusiasm, and credibility of recommenders

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*

Highly Recommend – Award Scholarship

Recommend – Award Scholarship

Acceptable – Consider as Alternate

Not Recommended

Do Not Recommend

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

Comments

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

HBCU Master’s Degree Program