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

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

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

HBCU Master’s Degree Program