Social Sciences Humanities and the Arts 1
Winner: Karen Arcos
Runner up: Adebisi Akinyemi
Education Health Society and the Environment
Winner: John Hunter
Runner up: Emily Janio
Biology and Medicine
Winner: Giulia Giammo
Runner up: Megan Newcomb
Social Sciences Humanities and the Arts 2
Winner: Jared Celniker
Runner up: Sophia Metcalf
Engineering and Physics
Winner: Craig Anderson
Runner up: Irene Martinez
Biology Chemistry and Medicine
Winner: Chloe Groome
Runner up: Sierra Williams
Social Sciences Humanities and the Arts 3
Winner: Rebecca Hofstein Grady
Runner up: Brett Mercier
Government Economics Society and Urban Planning
Winner: Rylan Simpson
Runner up: Laceé Pappas
Poster Session 1
Winner: Andrea Rohrbacher
Runner up: Niloufar Kiani
Poster Session 2
Winner: Anderson Nguyen
Runner up: Leesa Li
Speakers will be rated by a panel of judges on their ability to clearly present their research to a general audience.
The oral presenter with the judges’ highest average score within each session will receive a cash prize of $500 (subject to change).
The poster presenter with the judges’ highest average score within each session will receive a cash prize of $500 (subject to change).
Presenters are only allowed to present an oral OR poster presentation.*
*Former Symposium winners are eligible to win all awards IF the presentation material is significantly different from their previous presentations.
The speakers will be rated on roughly the following rubric:
| 1 – POOR | 2 – BELOW AVERAGE | 3 – ABOVE AVERAGE | 4 – EXCELLENT | |
| BROADER IMPACT | — Missing discussion of project contribution to science/society – Excessive jargon |
— Discusses how project is relevant to science/society – Some jargon not fully explained |
— Articulates how project is relevant to science/society – Jargon is fully explained |
— Successfully communicates relevance to science/society – Minimal jargon |
| PERSUASIVENESS | — Little enthusiasm – Monotonous – Relied extensively on notes – Difficulty hearing or understanding |
— Some interest & enthusiasm – Limited engagement with audience – Minor difficulty hearing or understanding |
— Displayed interest & enthusiasm – Engaged audience – Communicates clearly |
— Genuinely interested & enthusiastic – Very engaging – Communicates ideas fluently/precisely |
| ORGANIZATION | — Incoherent presentation of information – Ineffective slides |
— Somewhat coherent presentation of information – Quality of slides |
– Logical sequence & information presented is complete – Slides enhanced presentation |
— Completely logical/coherent presentation of information – Slides greatly enhances presentation |