Evaluation Criteria
AI-Generated Content
This documentation page was initially generated by AI to bootstrap the documentation structure. Content may be incomplete or contain inaccuracies. We welcome contributions to improve it.
This guide explains the criteria used to evaluate applications consistently.
Overview
Applications are evaluated on multiple factors. Use this guide to ensure consistent, fair reviews.
Evaluation Factors
1. MUN Experience
Assess the applicant's background:
| Level | Description | Typical Score |
|---|---|---|
| Beginner | No previous experience | 1-2 |
| Some Experience | 1-3 conferences | 3-4 |
| Experienced | 4+ conferences | 5-6 |
| Advanced | Leadership roles, awards | 7-8 |
Consider quality over quantity - chairing one conference may outweigh attending many.
2. Motivation Letter
Evaluate the written statement:
Strong indicators:
- Clear understanding of MUN
- Specific goals for attendance
- Relevant personal experiences
- Good writing quality
Weak indicators:
- Generic or copied content
- No specific reasons for attending
- Poor grammar/structure
- Minimal effort shown
3. Committee Preferences
Assess preference choices:
- Are choices reasonable given experience?
- Is the reasoning clear?
- Do preferences show preparation?
4. Application Completeness
Check for:
- All required fields filled
- Documents uploaded
- Information is accurate
- No contradictions
5. Special Circumstances
Consider:
- First-time applicants
- Geographic diversity
- School group balance
- Special needs indicated
Scoring Guidelines
Numerical Scoring (if used)
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1-2 | Does not meet minimum requirements |
| 3-4 | Meets basic requirements |
| 5-6 | Good candidate |
| 7-8 | Strong candidate |
| 9-10 | Exceptional candidate |
Recommendation Categories
Accept - Use when:
- Meets or exceeds criteria
- Good fit for the conference
- No significant concerns
Waitlist - Use when:
- Meets minimum criteria
- Capacity is limited
- Could benefit from attendance
Decline - Use when:
- Does not meet minimum criteria
- Significant concerns exist
- Incomplete despite follow-up
Consistency Tips
Calibration
- Review sample applications with colleagues
- Discuss borderline cases
- Align on interpretation of criteria
Avoiding Bias
- Focus on stated criteria
- Don't favor familiar schools
- Evaluate each application fresh
- Note and set aside personal preferences
Documentation
- Write clear notes for each decision
- Flag edge cases for discussion
- Record reasoning for unusual decisions
Edge Cases
Incomplete Applications
If minor items are missing:
- Contact applicant for completion
- Review once complete
- Don't penalize if completed promptly
Conflicting Information
If details don't match:
- Note the discrepancy
- Request clarification
- Consider explanation provided
Strong Preferences with Limited Experience
If a beginner requests advanced committees:
- Note the mismatch
- Consider their reasoning
- Recommend appropriate placement