Reviewer Instructions

Thank you for helping to review the NCWIT Collegiate Award Finalist Round applications! The applicants are women in any year of college who are majoring in computing and related fields. We are looking for applicants with outstanding technical accomplishments, demonstrated by projects that showcase their skill, mastery of the subject and expertise. Higher scores should be awarded to more innovative, impactful and difficult technical projects where the applicant was able to define her role clearly and confidently.

Please keep the following important guidelines in mind when scoring each application:

  1. Applicants are broken into three categories:
    • freshman, sophomore or two year degree program
    • junior or senior
    • graduate student
  2. Applicants will, and should, be at different levels of technical experience and expertise. Please take the “grade level” into consideration when viewing the presentation, scoring the technical questions and reviewing the applicant as a whole. For example, try to avoid scoring a college freshman low just because her project doesn’t yet exhibit the technical savvy of a Ph.D. student’s project. Score them against their peer-group expectations, to the extent possible.
  3. Applicants may not have English as their first or native language. Please do not penalize such applicants for minor syntax errors.
  4. Applicants have been asked to explain why their technical project is innovative or impactful. We urge you to put evidence of technical ability at the heart of your scoring. Please attempt to use your best understanding of the technology addressed to assess “how hard” it was to attain their accomplishment - rather than how well they presented it, or how “cool” it is. A project contribution that uses technology to solve a problem in a whole new way ought to be scored higher than something socially-positive or cute, but not that difficult to accomplish (technically).
  5. If you feel like an application contains a level of technical depth that exceeds your knowledge in the subject area (remember, some are Ph.D. candidates), please feel free to abandon your review and leave it to others. To do so, simply leave the Review page without saving the review (i.e., go “Back” in your browser), do not select the “Discard Review” button.
  6. You may be assigned an application for a student you personally know, or who attends an institution to which you have personal connection. If you think that your relationship with the applicant or her college/university might influence your review, you should consider it a conflict of interest. In that situation, please do not complete your review of the application. Simply leave the Review page without saving or submitting the review (i.e., go “Back” in your browser), do not select the “Discard Review” button.

FINALIST ROUND APPLICATION REVIEW QUESTIONS

Technical Difficulty

Reviewer Prompt: Rate the technical complexity or difficulty of the project based on the overall application. Please utilize the point descriptors below to score the technical difficulty. Please take into account the student's level in school.

  1. The project has an extremely high level of technical complexity or difficulty.
  2. The project has a high level of technical complexity or difficulty.
  3. The project has a moderately high level of technical complexity or difficulty.
  4. The project has a moderate level of technical complexity or difficulty.
  5. The project has a lower than moderate level of technical complexity or difficulty.
  6. The project has a very low level of technical complexity or difficulty.
  7. The project has absolutely no clear technical complexity or difficulty.

Presentation: Clarity & Effectiveness

Reviewer Prompt: Please utilize the point descriptors below to score the clarity and effectiveness of the presentation.

  1. The presentation demonstrated an extremely high level of organization and effectiveness. The message of the project was fully and completely conveyed in a highly professional manner.
  2. The presentation was highly organized, effective, and conveyed the message of the project appropriately.
  3. The presentation was fairly well organized and effective and conveyed many of the elements of the project.
  4. The presentation was moderately effective/organized and conveyed a moderately complete description of the project.
  5. The presentation was slightly effective/organized and the description of the project was incomplete or lacking essential details.
  6. The presentation was not very effective or organized and the description of the project was inadequate.
  7. The presentation was not at all effective or organized, and it did not convey a description of the project

Presentation: Innovation & Impact

Reviewer Prompt: Please utilize the point descriptors below to score the innovation and potential impact of this project as presented.

  1. The project, as presented, is extremely innovative in its approach or design and has an extreme likelihood to impact a wide variety of people.
  2. The project, as presented, shows a high level of innovation in design or approach and appears to have a high likelihood of impact,
  3. The project, as presented, shows an above average level of innovation in design or approach and will likely have impact.
  4. The project, as presented, shows a moderate amount of innovation in its design or approach and will have a moderate amount of impact.
  5. The project, as presented, shows a slight level of innovation and has a small possibility of making an impact.
  6. The project, as presented, is not innovative and has a low probability of making an impact.
  7. The project, as presented, is not at all innovative and has no likelihood of potential impact.

Recommendation Letter

Reviewer Prompt: Please utilize the point descriptors below to score the Recommendation Letter.

  1. Recommendation letter showed exceptional support of applicant citing many examples of applicant's talent and skill.
  2. Recommendation letter was highly detailed and clearly explained why the recommender supports the applicant.
  3. Recommendation letter was very supportive and contained clear details.
  4. Recommendation letter was fair and contained necessary elements.
  5. Recommendation letter lacked elements that would have clarified support.
  6. Recommendation letter showed very little support for applicant.
  7. Recommendation letter showed no support for applicant whatsoever.

Final Summarization of Application

Reviewer Prompt: The NCWIT Collegiate Award, with a top prize of $10,000, honors the outstanding computing accomplishments of undergraduate and graduate women and recognizes technical contributions to projects that demonstrate a high level of innovation and potential impact. Considering this application in its entirety, please indicate your overall recommendation for this applicant.

  1. I give my highest recommendation to this student. This is an exceptional application and should clearly win the NCWIT Collegiate Award.
  2. I highly recommend this student for the NCWIT Collegiate Award with no reservation.
  3. I recommend this student for the NCWIT Collegiate Award with slight reservation.
  4. I am firmly in the middle with my recommendation of this student for the NCWIT Collegiate Award.
  5. I slightly recommend this student for the NCWIT Collegiate Award, and have a few reservations.
  6. I hesitantly recommend this student for the NCWIT Collegiate Award; I have many reservations.
  7. I do not recommend this student for the NCWIT Collegiate Award.

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer Prompt: Reviewer comments are required. Your comments are invaluable and make a big difference during the selection phase.