Cohort At-a-Glance
High-level metrics for the FY26 Delta Mu Mu Scholarship applicant pool. These four KPIs summarize cohort size, scoring performance, top-tier concentration, and application completeness.
Scoring Analytics
Visual analysis of how qualitative scores are distributed across the cohort, how each rubric category performs on average, and a side-by-side comparison of every candidate broken down by Essay, Activities, and Letters. Click any bar in the ranked chart to drill into that candidate's detail page.
Score Distribution
Total qualitative scores across the 16-candidate cohort
Rubric Breakdown by Category
Average score per rubric area with max reference line
All Candidates — Ranked by Total Score
Horizontal bar with category breakdown • Click a bar to view candidate detail
Key Insights & Recommendations
Actionable findings from the evaluation: top candidates to advance, common essay deductions to watch, application completeness gaps requiring follow-up, and a demographic snapshot of the cohort.
Select a candidate from the Rankings table or click a bar in the chart to view details.
Evaluation Rubric Reference
Complete scoring criteria used by the DMM Scholarship Committee to evaluate FY26 applicants. The evaluation covers five measures: two quantitative (GPA and FAFSA) and three qualitative (Essay, Activities, Letters). Evaluators focus on the three qualitative dimensions, worth a combined 30 points.
Framework Overview
Five Quantitative & Qualitative Measures
Quantitative
2
GPA + FAFSA
Qualitative
3
Our Focus (30 pts)
Evaluation Period
March 8 – April 6, 2026
Est. 10-15 minutes per application
Online Evaluation Form
form.jotform.com/260147550757157
Scoring Tiers
28-30
Tier 1 — Recommend
Top candidates for award
23-27
Tier 2 — Strong
Competitive alternate pool
10-22
Tier 3 — Developing
Below threshold for award
Point Allocation Summary
10
Essay Points
3 sub-criteria
10
Activities Points
4 sub-criteria
10
Letters Points
3 sub-criteria
RUBRIC #1
The Essay
10 pts max
Essay Topic
"How do you anticipate leveraging your educational experience to uplift the African American community?"
Evaluators assess submitted essays based on the following criteria. Essays may earn a maximum rating of 10 points in total.
| Sub-Criteria | Points | Definition |
|---|
| Development of Topic/Thesis | 1–4 | The topic is well-developed. It covers and develops major points, supplying enough information for understanding. |
| Progression | 1–3 | Composition progresses from beginning to end in a logical flow of thought and information. |
| Readability | 1–3 | Concise prose that sticks to the point and does not ramble (it holds the reader's attention). |
Note: Grammar, spelling, and punctuation will be scored separately, utilizing the evaluation statistics/grade in Microsoft Word for each essay. The external quantitative rating will factor equally into the overall collective final score for the applicant's essay.
RUBRIC #2
Activities, Honors/Awards, Community Involvement & Employment
10 pts max
Evaluators assess the applicant's outside activities based on the following factors. Information from the letters of recommendation can be used to add insight and greater understanding.
| Sub-Criteria | Points | Definition |
|---|
| Achievement | 1–3 | Recognition of success and the quality/meaning/importance of the recognition/achievement. |
| Leadership | 1–3 | Accepting/volunteering for responsibility and guiding others and the organization. |
| Impact | 1–2 | The effectiveness and consequence of the applicant's actions and involvement. |
| Skill(s) Development/Growth | 1–2 | Gained experience and learning that will benefit the applicant. |
RUBRIC #3
Letters of Recommendation
10 pts max
Two (2) letters of recommendation are required from each applicant for their application to be eligible. Letters of recommendation typically shine a glowing light on the applicant. Evaluators assess based on the following factors.
| Sub-Criteria | Points | Definition |
|---|
| Familiarity with the Applicant | 1–3 | How well the recommender knows the applicant and the depth of their relationship. |
| High Endorsement | 1–3 | Strength and enthusiasm of the recommender's endorsement of the applicant. |
| Provided Beneficial Insight | 1–4 | The depth and quality of insight the recommender provides about the applicant's character, abilities, and potential. |