We will have two rounds of judging.
Round 1: Slides Judging
- Every institution with a team participating is invited to choose a judge to review and score the slide decks
- Deadline to select a judge: 11:59PM in your timezone on March 15
- The first round will result in a score for the slide deck from each team.
- Slides will be ready for judging by 12PM EDT (noon) April 2
- Slide judging timeline: April 2 – 7
- Slide judges must submit their scores for all decks by 11:59PM April 7 in your time zone, or they will not be counted.
- Scores will be submitted via a form (link will be sent)
- Judges will not be able to see other judges’ scores until after live competitors announced
- Judges do not score the slides from their own team’s school
- Maximum and minimum scores will be dropped
- The 9 teams with the highest scores on their slide decks will advance to the live competition.
- The slides scoring rubric is here
- Optional training for slide judges will be offered on March 24/25. See details here.
Round 2: Live Competition Judging
- Experienced judges from the six host schools will judge the live competition. These judges will be different from the team coaches.
- The live competition scoring rubric is here
Slides Rubric
| Assessment (10 pts): | Identifies and explains the main problem(s), challenge(s), and/or opportunities raised by the case |
| Ethics (10 pts): | Clear and relevant ethical framework included |
| Recommendations (15 pts): | Provides well-supported recommendation(s) for use of AI in hiring that flow from the ethical framework and are plausible (implications for marketing, finance, law, etc.). |
| Polished (5 pts): | Professional tone, flows coherently, looks polished and is free of grammar and spelling errors. |
Live Competition Rubric
| Presentation | |
| Summary (10 pts): | Clear and orderly statement of the important points from the case and its analysis. |
| Recommendations (15 pts): | The presentation includes a persuasive clear, specific, plausible recommendations |
| Professional delivery (15 pts): | The presentation is delivered in a polished manner that fits within the time constraints |
| Question & answer session | |
| Questions and answers (5 pts): | The presenters respond directly to the questions from the judges, providing appropriate explanations and evidence and elaborating as necessary. |
| Coherence (5 pts): | The presenters provide answers that draw on or extend the reasoning and principles used during the presentation. |
| Collaborative (5 pts): | The presenters respond as a team, with no one dominating the discussion, and with everyone demonstrating preparedness |
| Poised (5 pts): | The presenters are thoughtful, clear, and not rattled by the questions |
Judge Training
- Training sessions will be held virtually (in English)
- Attendance at one of the trainings is encouraged but not required
- Content will be the same at both meetings; only attend one
- Meeting link will be sent directly to judges
LSICC 