|
Criteria |
NOT QUITE (< 50%) |
ALMOST HAVE IT (50%-69%) |
RIGHT ON (70%-89%) |
ABOVE AND BEYOND (>90+) |
|
Clarity of Response |
Response is unclear, disorganized, or lacks coherence |
Response is somewhat clear but lacks organization or coherence |
Response is clear and generally well-organized, though some minor areas of improvement may exist |
Response is exceptionally clear, well-organized, and effectively communicates the candidate's interest in attending the Collision Conference |
|
Depth of Insight |
Response demonstrates a lack of insight into the Collision Conference and the candidate's objectives |
Response lacks sufficient depth or insight into the Collision Conference and the candidate's objectives |
Response provides a good level of insight into the Collision Conference and the candidate's goals for participation |
Response demonstrates a profound understanding of the Collision Conference, highlighting specific aspects of the event that align with the candidate's interests and objectives |
|
Relevance to Conference Themes |
Response demonstrates a lack of connection between the candidate's interests and objectives |
Response makes little to no effort to connect the candidate's interests and objectives |
Response attempts to connect the candidate's interests and objectives to the themes of the Collision Conference |
Response effectively connects the candidate's interests and objectives to the themes and focus areas of the Collision Conference |
|
Overall Presentation |
Response is poorly presented, with little to no adherence to formatting guidelines |
Response is poorly presented, with significant deviations from formatting guidelines |
Response is adequately presented, though there may be some minor deviations from formatting guidelines |
Response is exceptionally well-presented, adhering to all formatting guidelines with no errors. The writing is polished, engaging, and professional. |