Format, Rules, and Judging Criteria

Grad Slam is a tournament-style competition. Students initially present in the preliminary rounds in order to move forward in the competition to compete in the final round for the grand prizes.

Each presentation block is judged by a set of 3 to 5 judges. The two highest scoring presenters move forward based on the judges' evaluation. Individuals presenting in one presentation block are evaluated separately from another presentation block.

Each presentation session generally flows as follows:

1. Welcome from the Master of Ceremony
2. Introduction of Session Judges
3. Student presents
4. Judges complete initial evaluation
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until all presentations conclude
6. Closing of the session
7. Judges review scores and make final decision for the session.
8. Announcement of results
   1. In the preliminary rounds, this takes place via email and by posting on the website the day following the conclusion of the preliminary rounds.
   2. In the final round, this takes place immediately following the judges' decision as part of the final awards ceremony.

• Students can present on original research or creative projects they are conducting for their thesis, dissertation, or any other project during their time as a graduate student at University of Arizona. The presentation can focus on the development of new ideas, methods, or products, or it may focus on the application and revision of current methods or models. Student artists should focus on how their creative work applies to the broader exchange of ideas and the role creative work plays in providing new perspective or in shaping attitudes.
• Presentations are limited to 3 minutes maximum and competitors exceeding 3 minutes are disqualified.
• Presentations are to be spoken word (e.g. no poems, raps or songs).
• Presentations are considered to have commenced when a presenter starts their presentation through either movement or speech.
• A single static PowerPoint slide is permitted. No slide transitions, animations or movement) and is to be presented from the beginning of the oration. You may create your slide in the software of your choice; however, the version submitted will need to be saved as a PowerPoint file.
• No additional electronic media (e.g. sound and video files) are permitted.
• No additional props (e.g. costumes, musical instruments, laboratory equipment) are permitted.
• The decision of the adjudicating panel is final.
• Students that advance in the competition are allowed to revise their presentation based on feedback from the judges and personal experience.
• Previous 1st Place Winners of Grad Slam may not compete in subsequent Grad Slam competitions.

The following is also available in PDF format for your use offline. Download a copy of the scorecard and rubric to have handy when preparing for your Grad Slam talk.

Scoring

Judges apply a score of 1 to 5 to each of the criterion statements. The presenters with the highest combined scores move forward in the competition. Judges do an initial evaluation immediately following the talk and then review scores after all presenters in the session have concluded. Below are the general descriptions for each point value.

5 - The presentation was excellent. There are few, if any recommendations to offer. The talk is engaging and appropriate for a non-specialist audience. The presenter is effective in achieving their communication goals, describing their project, and the why behind it.

4 - The presentation was above average. While the talk was appropriate for a non-specialist audience and is overall effective in communicating the goals and impact of the project, small tweaks or stylistic adjustments are recommended to make the talk excellent.

3 - The presentation was appropriate for a non-specialist audience; however, there are opportunities to further enhance the presentation's ability to connect with the audience and communicate the goals and impact of the project.

2 - The presentation was below average. While the presentation had elements appropriate for non-specialist audiences, more work is needed.

1 - The presentation was not appropriate for a non-specialist audience. Significant work is needed to refine the goals and content of the presentation.

Evaluation Criteria

Comprehension and content

• The presentation provided clear motivation, background, and significance to the research question, creative inquiry, or artistic work.
• The presentation clearly described the strategy or design and the results or findings of the work.
• The presentation clearly described the conclusions, outcomes, and impact of the work.

Engagement and communication

• The oration was delivered clearly, and the language was appropriate for a non-specialist audience.
• The presenter conveyed enthusiasm for their work and captured and maintained the audience’s attention.
• The slide was well-defined and enhanced the presentation.