| Selection of Mentor |
5 |
Mentor is highly relevant to the student’s career goals, meets all criteria, and is an established professional in their field. (5) |
Mentor is relevant to the student’s goals but may not fully meet all criteria. (4) |
Mentor selection is somewhat relevant but lacks alignment with career goals or criteria. (3) |
Mentor is irrelevant, inappropriate, or does not meet project criteria. (0) |
| Initial Correspondence |
3 |
The initial correspondence is professional, respectful, and establishes a clear purpose for mentorship. (3) |
The correspondence is mostly professional but includes minor tone or formatting issues. (2.5) |
The correspondence is vague, unclear, or poorly written. (2) |
No correspondence is submitted, or it is inappropriate. (0) |
| Reflections on Meetings |
5 |
Each of the three reflections is detailed, insightful, and thoughtfully discusses key takeaways and next steps. (5) |
Reflections are complete but lack depth or clarity in one or more areas. (4) |
Reflections are vague or incomplete, missing significant insights or takeaways. (3) |
Reflections are missing or fail to meet the project requirements. (0) |
| Clarity and Presentation |
2 |
All deliverables are professional, well-organized, and submitted in a clear format. (2) |
Deliverables are mostly professional but include minor organizational or clarity issues. (1.5) |
Deliverables are poorly organized or difficult to follow. (1) |
Deliverables are unclear, unprofessional, or incoherent. (0) |
