Criteria & Scoring

Applicants are evaluated and scored based on the five categories outlined below. Scientific/Technical Background and Professional Accomplishment are weighted more heavily than the other four categories, as first and foremost the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships are professional development opportunities for highly qualified scientists and engineers.

However, that alone is not sufficient for success as a fellow. We also seek individuals who have a combination of leadership attributes, initiative, analytical and problem-solving abilities, and communication skills, who demonstrate commitment to this professional development opportunity and the fellowship mission & objectives.

All qualified applicants will receive consideration for the fellowship without regard to race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or other protected category.

The five categories are presented below with descriptors of what we seek in successful fellowship finalists, and the point ranges to use when evaluating applicants in each category. A perfect single score for an applicant would be 100 points.

Scientific/Technical Background & Professional Accomplishment (1-40 points)

  • Solid scientific/technical education and experience in area of expertise, appropriate to career stage

  • Employment in relevant academic, applied scientific/technical, research, administration, outreach or policy positions appropriate to career stage and field

  • Record of publications and/or presentations appropriate to career stage, field, and institutional setting

  • Record of grants and/or participation in research projects or other scientific/technical initiatives appropriate to career stage, field, and institutional setting

Leadership & Potential (1-15 points)

  • Prior leadership roles relevant to career stage (graduate student governance or faculty committees; advisory or editorial committees; active in professional societies, non-profit, or community initiatives; other)

  • Skill/potential to organize, build consensus, lead projects and people toward positive outcomes

  • Confidence, maturity, and self-direction with the capacity and flexibility to work well independently as well as in groups

  • Ability to identify personal strengths and areas for growth and development

  • Potential to take initiative to make the fellowship a rich and positive experience, to disseminate the skills learned through the fellowship, and take advantage of networks developed

Analytical & Problem-Solving Abilities (1-15 points)

  • Evidence of creative thinking and analytical skill

  • Ability to translate and apply theoretical concepts into practice to solve problems

  • Capacity to make connections between science/technology and broader economic, social, and political issues

Communication, Interpersonal & Outreach Skills (1-15 points)

  • Excellent communication skills: articulate, cohesive, concise, rational flow of information, and clear in both context and detail

  • Ability to convey scientific knowledge in broader, non-scientific contexts

  • Capacity to work effectively with diverse stakeholders outside scientific/engineering communities

Commitment to AAAS Fellowship Objectives & Opportunities (1-15 points)

  • Strong interest in applying their knowledge toward the solution of problems where the fellowship would be served

  • Clarity of objectives for applying to the fellowship, and how they imagine using the fellowship experience in the future

  • Willingness and flexibility to tackle issues beyond area of expertise, openness and capacity to expand experience in the policy realm, and to interact with policymakers and regulators

  • Realistic expectations, open-minded and adaptable to fellowship opportunities as well as working through challenges

  • Demonstrates/communicates commitment to apply scientific/technical expertise to serve society

When reviewing and scoring applications, consider all the materials, including the candidate statement, CV and educational record, summary of extracurricular activities, and the letters of recommendation.

Total Scores & Comparisons

Once you complete your review of the individual applications, you will see a summary of your ratings for the applicants you have scored on your Home page under Scored Applications and Pending Finalization. Before you click the Finalize All Application button you should assess the overall scores to ensure that your ratings are consistent and appropriate. Your scores should be distributed among the applicants you consider the most qualified and the least qualified.

The following guide is provided to reduce subjectivity and promote consistency in scoring. If an applicant's score does not correspond with the descriptions below, please reassess the application and your rating.

90--100: The applicant has an excellent essay, CV and qualifications, record of extracurricular activities, and recommendations. Overall, they excel in the outlined criteria, and therefore is highly qualified for a AAAS Fellowship.

79--89: The applicant has submitted a good essay, has a solid CV and qualifications and summary of extracurricular activities, and the references attest to the quality of the candidate. Overall, the candidate meets or exceeds the outlined criteria and is well-qualified for a AAAS Fellowship.

61--78: The applicant appears average for their career stage and does not stand out as a candidate, therefore they are not well-qualified for a AAAS Fellowship.

31--60: The applicant demonstrates merit only in some portions of their application, and the credentials are not clearly communicated through the essay, and/or the CV, record of extracurricular activities, recommendations. The candidate meets only some of the outlined criteria and therefore is not qualified.

0--30: The applicant does not meet the majority of criteria for a AAAS Fellowship and therefore is not qualified.

Raw Scores & Z Scores

The online review system tallies raw scores and calculates Z-scores for use in evaluating the applicants. No set of scores can fully describe the qualities sought, and therefore cannot serve as the ultimate arbiter of final decisions. That task will fall to the Selection Committee members following the completion of interviews.

Z-scores are determined by a statistical treatment to account for reviewer variability—that is, the differences between the average of each reviewer’s scores (i.e., is a particular reviewer an “easy” or “hard” grader) and the distribution of their scores for all the applicants they evaluated.

The Z-score expresses each individual score as a standardized function of the mean and distribution for all the applicants scored by a particular reviewer. For example, a zero Z-score for an applicant would indicate that they are average among those reviewed by a particular individual. A positive Z-score indicates an above average applicant, and a negative Z-score denotes a below average applicant. Thus, the Z-score allows better comparability among reviewers. It also reduces the possibility that an applicant receives an unusually low or high grand total raw score (the sum of the three assigned reviewers' scores) because they happened to be assigned to “hard” or “easy” reviewers. The Z-scores for each applicant are then averaged.