This guide is intended to help put you into an appropriate frame of mind to judge middle- and high-school level science fair projects and to give you some information about judging criteria.

Please keep in mind that the overall goals of all our judges should be threefold:

1. to provide each and every student with an educational, motivating experience,
2. to provide constructive suggestions to help them improve their scientific/engineering skills, and
3. to choose the best projects for awards.

Also keep in mind that we are judging the following:

• The quality of the work done on a project by a middle- or high-school student, and how well that student understands the project. Only secondarily are we evaluating the physical display and the student’s verbal presentation.
• A project that involves laboratory, field, or theoretical work, and not just library research or gadgeteering.
• A middle- or high-school student’s work, not that of a Ph.D. candidate or a professional.

Our procedure involves two to three rounds of judging and is similar for both middle- and high school-divisions.  In the first round, each project is comparatively ranked by at least three judges.  The best projects in each division are then moved into the second round. For large divisions, the second round is used to further narrow the pool of projects.  In the final round – be it second or third – the top awards are decided by head-to-head ranking of all projects by each judge.  Each judge will also provide written comments for a few students, as discussed in a separate judging guide.

The system is set up so that “close calls” in the first rounds usually don’t matter.  So, judges should not agonize over exact rankings.  They should not try to set up a rigid scoring system.  Rather, they should spend the time and effort interacting with the young scientists.  Most students say that they enjoy talking to the judges, and that in many cases it is the high point of their experience at the Fair.

Most students will have received some help from adults. This is perfectly allowable and encouraged.  However, when comparing a project that was done largely by the student to one where the student received extensive adult help, the judges should focus on what the students did themselves. Students are expected to openly acknowledge adults who gave them significant help and should be able to completely explain what was done for them. For example, if a sophisticated instrument was used by an adult on their behalf, the student should be able to describe how the instrument works and how the data was interpreted.

Judging Criteria

The following criteria, adapted from the International Science and Engineering Fair, are to be used as general guidance.  You should rank the projects based on your opinion of the quality of work the student themselves did and how well the student understands the project and area of study.

Scientific Thought or Engineering Goals (depending on type of project) (about 30 percent)

Scientific Thought:

• Is the problem stated clearly and unambiguously?
• Was there a procedural plan for obtaining a solution?
• Are the variables clearly recognized and defined?
• If controls were necessary, were they correctly used?
• Are the limitations of the data recognized?
• Are there adequate data to support the conclusions?
• Does the student have an idea of what further research is indicated?

Engineering Goals:

• Does the project have a clear objective?
• Does this objective have relevance to the needs of the potential user?
• Is the solution practical and workable?
• Has the solution been tested to see if it really works?

Creative Ability (about 30 percent) Does the project show creative ability and originality in the

• question asked?
• approach to solving the problem?
• analysis and interpretation of the data?
• construction, design, and/or use of equipment?

(Note: A student should not be penalized for taking help from others, but credit for creative ability and originality should be based on what the student has contributed.)

Thoroughness (about 15 percent)

• Does the project carry out its purpose to completion?
• Are the conclusions based on a single experiment, or on replication?
• If it is the kind of project where notes were appropriate, how complete are they?
• Is the student aware of other approaches or theories concerning the project?
• How much time was spent on the project?

Skill (about 15 percent)

• Does the student have the skills required to do all the work necessary to obtain the data which support the project? Laboratory skills? Computation skills? Observational skills? Design skills?
• What assistance was received from parents, teachers, scientists, or engineers?
• Where did the equipment come from? Was it built independently by the student? Was it obtained on loan? Was it part of a laboratory in which the student worked?

Clarity (about 10 percent)

• How clearly is the student able to discuss the project? Is he/she able to explain its purpose, procedure and conclusions in a clear and concise manner?
• How clearly are the data and results presented in the project display?

MCSF Judging Instructions

• You must finish and turn in your results on time.  One late judge delays the entire division.  You will have less than 10 minutes to interview each project.  Part of the time will be needed to rank projects and report results.
  
• You must judge exactly 12 projects in the first round.  You are assigned to judge the projects that have blanks on your ranking sheet.  If one of these projects is missing an hour after judging started (no-show), judge the next alternate project (alternate a, then b, then c, etc.).
  
• Rank the projects from 1 to 12, WITH “1” = BEST!
  
• Judge by the project number, not the title or name. If there is a project in a numbered space that is on your judging list, judge/interview the student standing there. (Sometimes we have to locate a “surprise” project in place of a no-show.)
  
• Begin each interview by asking the student to tell you about their project.  Listen to them, please don’t dominate the conversation.
  
• Don’t expect too much sophistication, especially from the younger students.  Always try to be positive.  Encourage them to continue doing science projects!
  
• Please take the time to write thoughtful and constructive feedback on the Awards of Distinction sheets, as this is the primary feedback for most students.

Important Sensitivity Reminders for MCSF Judges

• Be caring.  A student’s feelings can be hurt badly and unnecessarily by officials’ comments, particularly if the student perceives unfairness or lack of concern.  It is OK to suggest how (in your opinion) a project might have been improved, but do NOT speculate on how this might have affected the project’s ranking. (Example of what NOT to say: “Your project probably would have won, if only the data had been graphed differently.”)

• Do not dominate conversations with students, even if you are tempted to “educate” the young scientist about their chosen subject.  Rather, draw the students out by first asking them to “tell me about your project”, then by asking questions.

• Look for positive aspects and encourage them.

• Give credit for discovery and characterization, not just testing a hypothesis.  Top-ranked projects should be the ones that best demonstrate students figuring out how the world actually works, independent of how they thought it might.  A good measure for most projects is “what do we know now (after the project), that we did not know before?”.

• Written comments to students should be positive and helpful.  We suggest writing in first and second person (“I” and “you”).  See the examples available at the Coordinator tables.

• Please do not ask for students’ last names or schools.

For more information contact the Judging Chair.