Judging Process
Judging of Imagine Tomorrow projects takes place in two phases.
Morning Phase
Assigning judges. Each judge is assigned a set of teams within a single challenge category (Design, Technology, Behavior, Multidisciplinary Collaboration) to evaluate. Within each challenge category, the same number of judges evaluates each team.
Evaluating projects. Judges evaluate projects on the five dimensions outlined in the Judging Criteria. For each of the five dimensions, the judge assigns 0 – 5 points depending on how well, in the judge’s opinion, the project meets the standards of that dimension. After scoring each dimension, the judge adds up the points, and that sum is the project’s Total Score. The Total Score can range from 0 to 25.
Tallying scores. After the judge has visited all of his/her assigned projects, s/he enters each project’s booth number and Total Score into one of the computers at the judging station. These entries go into a central database. After all judges have entered their scores, the competition’s Directors of Judging calculate the average Total Score for each project.
Advancing to the next round. Within each challenge, the projects with the eight highest averages advance to the second round of judging. If there are ties for the eighth-highest average, all of the tied projects are advanced.
Afternoon Phase
Reviewing finalists. Within each of the four challenges, judges are given the list of eight finalists. Each judge must now visit every finalist project within their assigned challenge, though they are not required to return to a project that they viewed during the first round. After seeing each project, judges identify those they would rank as first-, second-, third-, and fourth-best.
Tallying scores. Judges enter their rankings into one of the computers at the judging station, and these rankings also go into a central database. In the database, a first-place rank is given four points; a second-place rank three points; a third-place rank two points; and a fourth-place rank one point. After all judges have entered their rankings, the directors of judging total the points for each finalist project. The project with the highest total is declared the winner of the challenge; the project with the second-highest total wins second place; and the project with the third-highest total receives third place. In the event of a tie, the project with the greater number of first-place ranks wins the placement. This method of scoring rewards both excellence and breadth of support.
Winning. In order to win the challenge, a project must not only be viewed as having high enough quality to merit a ranking, it must be considered so by a large number of the judges. A project that just a few judges really like will not place. As with the first round of judging, the Directors know only the booth numbers of the finalist projects.
Naming the Grand Prize winner. The Grand Prize-winning project is selected from among the first-place projects across the four challenges. The Grand Prize is awarded to the project that receives the greatest proportion of first-place votes within its challenge, and is ranked by the greatest proportion of its judges. If two projects are split on these criteria, the winner will be the project with broadest support.
For example, if Project A was ranked first by 60 percent of its judges and received a rank from 90 percent, and Project B was ranked first by 50 percent of its judges, and received a rank from 100 percent, Project B would be declared the Grand Prize winner. In the challenge area from which the Grand Prize winner came, the original second-place project is declared the winner of the challenge, the original third-place project is elevated to second place, and the project with the fourth-highest rank total wins third place.
Specialty awards. Specialty award winners are determined by recommendations from the judges. Each judge visits a number of projects (from other challenges as well as from his/her assigned challenge) and nominates one or two projects for each specialty award. The winner is simply the project that receives the greatest number of nominations.
New this year! The “advisor favorite” award winner is determined from nominations submitted by project advisors. Advisors cannot nominate any project from their own school.
Directors of Judging
Leading the judging process are two directors of judging, who work to ensure the most objective judging possible. The directors of judging do not know the identities of the projects, nor do they receive comments from judges, so it is impossible for them to select the Grand Prize-winning project from anything other than the rank data. Once all winners have been identified, the booth numbers of the winning projects are given to the competition coordinator, who matches project titles and affiliations with the numbers.
Addressing score discrepancies. The directors of judging reserve the right to bypass a project if there is considerable discrepancy, defined as an unusually large standard deviation, among judges’ scores for a specific project. This would occur if some judges consider a project to be outstanding, while others consider it to be poor. Because directors are not allowed to discuss projects with judges while the competition is in progress, and therefore cannot reconcile the score discrepancy, the directors will instead send forward the project with the next-largest average, if there is good agreement among its judges’ scores.