Judging Criteria

The judging panel for this Challenge will be composed of leaders and experts with experience in STEAM education and career preparation/exploration in the United States. After an initial screening by MIT Solve and GM reviewers, the judges will score the screened solutions based on the following criteria.

Alignment: The solution addresses at least one of the key dimensions of the Challenge or the overall challenge question. The solution is applicable to learners in the United States.
Potential for Impact: The planned solution has the potential to drive STEAM skillset development and/or career preparation/exploration in the United States.
Feasibility: The team has a realistic and practical plan for implementing the solution, and it is feasible in the given context.
Innovative Approach: The solution includes a new technology, a new application of technology, a new business model, or a new process for solving the Challenge.
Human-Centered Design: The solution is designed with and for all learners, including those from underserved communities, and the solution team demonstrates that they have the experience, relationships, data, and knowledge to develop and deliver a successful solution.
Scalability: The solution has a plan for financial viability and the potential to be scaled to affect the lives of more people.
Partnership Potential: The applicant clearly explains how the solution would benefit from some of the resources that the Solve community is positioned to provide via the support program. Note: only solutions selected as finalists will be assessed on this criterion.

Judging Panel

Melissa Moritz

Senior Advisor, Alliance for Learning Innovation and STEM Next Opportunity Fund

Travis York

Director, Center for STEMM Education & Workforce, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Judy Dunbar

Director, Social & Community Impact, Converse, Inc

Stephanie Couch

Executive Director, Lemelson-MIT Program

Ned Staebler

President & CEO, TechTown Detroit

Tiera Fletcher

Rocket Product Life Cycle Engineer, The Boeing Company,

Margaret Honey

President & CEO, Scratch Foundation

Dina Ghobashy

Director of Education Transformation, Microsoft

Sarida Scott

Vice President, Program, The Skillman Foundation

Kerrie Mitchell Campbell-Mabins

President & CEO, Detroit Public Schools Community District Foundation

Rhonda Fields

Portfolio Lead, STEAM Education, General Motors

Criteria Scoring Details

How might your application be scored higher or lower? Learn more below.

: A solution would score lower on Alignment if it does not convincingly explain why it is relevant to the Challenge.
A solution would score higher on Alignment if it fits one or more of the Challenge dimensions, or is clearly relevant to the overall Challenge question.
: A solution would score lower on Potential for Impact if the theory of how it could change lives does not make logical sense, or if there is existing evidence that it will not work.
A solution would score higher on Potential for Impact if the theory of how it could change the lives of the intended population makes sense and the applicant provides evidence that it is likely to have the intended impact (either from evaluations of the solution itself or from an existing body of evidence about similar interventions).
: A solution would score lower on Feasibility if the team does not have a realistic plan for implementation, or if the plan is unlikely to succeed (even if funding is acquired).
A solution should score higher on Feasibility if the team has a realistic plan for implementation that accounts for the political, economic, geographic, and cultural context, and the team has the necessary skills to implement that plan.
: A solution would score lower on Innovative Approach if it is an implementation of an existing approach without any context-specific modifications.
A solution would score higher on Innovative Approach if it is a truly novel approach, or a novel, context-appropriate application of an existing approach.
: A solution should score lower on Human-Centered Design if the solution is not designed with and for learners, including those who are underserved, and if the team and its leadership are not well-placed to deliver the solution because they are unable to demonstrate that they have the necessary experience, relationships, data, and knowledge.
A solution should score higher on Human-Centered Design if the solution, team, and leadership clearly demonstrate a focus on learners, including those who are from underserved populations; have clearly designed the solution for and with those populations; and clearly articulate that they have the necessary experience, relationships, data, and knowledge.
: A solution would score lower on Scalability if it solves a problem that does not affect other places or populations, if it would not be possible for it to grow in size, or if there is no path to financial viability.
A solution would score higher on Scalability if it has the potential to grow to affect the lives of millions and has a viable plan for achieving financial sustainability.
: A solution should score lower on Partnership Potential if the only barrier to success is funding or a specific service Solve does not provide, or if the team does not show the capacity and willingness to engage with the support program and take advantage of Solve’s resources.
A solution should score higher on Partnership Potential if the team is enthusiastic about participating in the support program and demonstrates having the time and willingness to take advantage of Solve’s resources.