Judging this year is fully in-person and live. Judging will be conducted Science-Fair style. This is different from previous years. This means that hackers will not be creating a short video, and instead hackers will verbally present their project to judges, along with a demo/slides. Hackers will be set up with their laptops in the read and relax section of Swem, and judges will walk up to them and ask them to show them their project. Hackers will give a demo of their project, along with a few slides if they wish. This will begin at 9:30AM on Sunday, since projects are due at 9AM. Presentations should be 4-6 minutes long, although judges may ask questions afterwards. Depending on how many projects are submitted, this will continue for ~1 hour, until all judges have reviewed their assigned projects.
Judges are adult volunteers, typically alumni, professors, and sponsor representatives. We also have some volunteers that work at tech companies in the area. Criteria to be a judge is being older than undergraduate age (22), have an ability to think critically and technically, although judges are NOT required to have a technical background (i.e. someone who is a CEO but has never touched code is eligible). This means that you should focus on the WHY and WHAT of your project, and less on the specific coding details. Showing that your project is functional and that it has potential is more important than having perfectly written code. We have 8 judges this year, many of whom are also mentors.
Judges will evaluate projects based on a rubric/criteria that our organizing team provides them with. Here are the judging evaluation formulas and questions that judges are asked.
✨ Quality (1-10) — This category encompasses the quality of the final hack AND the process to get there. Is the product user-friendly? Did they follow a logical design process (even if you didn't make it to your final product!)? How did they handle challenges? Does the approach make sense?
💥 Significance (1-10) — What is the value of the hack in the real world? Is it important and needed in the communities it is designed to serve?
🖌️ Creativity (1-10) — Did the team take risks? Did they come up with a new and ingenious solution? Did they use a certain technology in an inventive way?
🎯 Relevance (1-10) — This hack self-identifies as a ________ hack. Please rate the project's relevance to the category. For challenges sponsored by the IIC, this score will come from the project’s criteria for success, found here.
⚙️ Technical Knowledge (1-10) — Does the team understand how their project works? Does the project handle errors or unexpected situations effectively? Does the project work with external systems or tools? Are the project's features impressive?
🧠 Non-Technical Knowledge (1-10) — How well does the project address challenges or problems specific to a particular field of knowledge or group of people? Does the team show a clear understanding of the project's context?
👶 Beginner Hacks — Beginner hacks are evaluated based on their overall score, but only for teams that self-identify as beginners, and >50% of judges must agree.
⚒️ Workshop Content (1-10) — Ask the team to tell you about a piece of feedback from an &hacks mentor that they then incorporated into their project.
🤝 Mentor Feedback (1-10) — Ask the team to tell you about a piece of content from an &hacks workshop that they then incorporated into their project.