Explanation for Evaluation of Scholar-Chessplayer Awards

The following briefly explains the Scholastic Council’s philosophy and priorities for the 2001 Awards.  The first three criteria are very objective and do not require much thought.  The others are more subjective and necessitate some direction.

§              RATING – A student with a higher rating deserves a higher ranking.

§              SAT/ACT – A student with a higher score deserves a higher ranking.

§              HONOR ROLL – Because of the inconsistency in the manner in which schools rank or do not rank students and because schools grade on so many different scales, perhaps we should look at the frequency with which the student achieves high honors or regular honors rather than attempting to interpolate different grading scales. If a student is consistently on high honor roll every marking period throughout high school, s/he earns a 5.  If s/he earns high honors 90% of the time, it is worth a 4.  Consistently on either the regular honor roll or high honors = 3.  Consistently on regular honor roll with very few or no appearances on high honor roll = 2; Not on honor roll every marking period=1.

§              CHESS ACHIEVEMENTS – Placement in national events is our primary consideration, state events are secondary with local and regional events having a lower priority.

§              LEADERSHIP – In what activities other than chess has this student demonstrated a leadership role?  Has s/he started a new club at school?  Has this student earned any leadership awards?  Has s/he served as a class officer or held an office in a club or student government,

§              ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS – Subject area awards, membership in the National Honor Society, scholarships, and other significant activities are examples of the type of achievements for which we are searching.

§              CHESS SERVICE – The student who demonstrates leadership by organizing a chess club or event, helping as a chess coach or tournament director, or writing a regular chess column will most likely have a greater impact on the world of chess than one who only plays chess.

§              ESSAY – We are looking for scholars.  Scholars must be able to communicate by organizing their thoughts logically on paper and make a convincing argument or a memorable point.

§              REFERENCES – Because most kids are wise enough to select only an individual who will write glowing remarks about them, this is given a very low priority.  We must be careful not to penalize a student because the reference has poor communication skills. We are searching for candidates whose references mention key qualities, such as integrity, dedication, strong work ethic, motivation, etc.  I personally favor using a form that asks the evaluator to rank the individual on these qualities rather than asking for a general letter of reference.  A form is more objective and the student will not be penalized as he/she would be by a letter when the reference does a poor job communicating.  

The last column is weighted to reflect the Scholastic Council’s priorities for the current year.  Please write the score you give for each of the criteria in the first blank, and then multiply the score by the weighted factor to determine the score for each criterion.  The Council recognizes that those evaluating the candidates are undertaking a challenging task, and we wish to express our appreciation to all who take the time to help.