# Rubric 07: Career Readiness and Shark Tank

**Unit:** Unit 7, Launch: Career Readiness and FACS Shark Tank (capstone)
**Covers:** both topics. Criteria 1 and 2 are Topic 7.1 (Present Yourself). Criteria 3 to 6 are Topic 7.2 (`Project 07 - FACS Shark Tank.md`).
**Total:** 24 points (six criteria, 1 to 4 each). Labs and projects category (40 percent of the course grade).
**When each criterion is scored:**

| Criterion | Topic | Scored | From what |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The resume | 7.1 | **Lesson 7.5, last 15 minutes** | The Lesson 7.2 draft as revised, in the stapled Topic 7.1 set |
| 2. The interview | 7.1 | **Lesson 7.5, last 15 minutes** | The mock interview, the peer feedback sheet, the three-part answer, and the STAR planner |
| 3. The business brief and the customer research | 7.2 | **Lesson 7.10 Day 2, from the folder** | The one-page brief with the module connection sentence, and three interviews with what they changed |
| 4. The numbers | 7.2 | **Lesson 7.10 Day 2, from the folder** | The signed numbers page |
| 5. The prototype or sample | 7.2 | **Lesson 7.10 Day 2, from the object** | The prototype and the one-sentence unit connection on the planner sheet |
| 6. The pitch | 7.2 | **Lesson 7.11, live** | The 60-second pitch, the judge sheets, and the teacher's four live marks |

**Criteria 1 and 2 are individual. Criteria 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the team's score, with the one individual exception named at the bottom of the how-to-use note.**

Name: ____________________ Team: ____________________ Date scored: __________

## Self-assessment (fill this in first, before the teacher scores)

Fill rows 1 and 2 yourself in Lesson 7.5. Fill rows 3 to 6 as a team at the end of Lesson 7.10 Day 2. Every row needs a number and one sentence of evidence that names a bullet, a number, a quote, an object, or a moment.

| Criterion | My or our score (1 to 4) | One sentence of evidence, naming something specific |
|---|---|---|
| 1. The resume | | |
| 2. The interview | | |
| 3. The business brief and the customer research | | |
| 4. The numbers | | |
| 5. The prototype or sample | | |
| 6. The pitch | | |

## Teacher rubric

| Criterion | Not Yet (1) | Approaching (2) | Meets (3) | Exceeds (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **1. The resume** (Topic 7.1; IGLR 3. d), 1. c); CCO 3. a), 3. c); Std 3 PI E; CDOS 1; National FCS 1.2.2, 1.2.8) | Fewer than four of the seven sections are filled, or fewer than three real bullets exist, or the page has a line the student cannot point to as something they actually did, or the whole page is written in paragraphs | All seven sections are present but three or more bullets are missing the output, or the summary line is absent, or the experience section lists only paid work and leaves out school, volunteer, and family responsibilities, or the bullets start with "I" and read as sentences rather than bullets | All seven sections are filled: name and contact, a one-line summary, skills, experience including school and volunteer and family responsibilities, activities, awards, languages. At least five bullets have all three parts (the work, the explanation, the output), each with a number, a quantity, or a named audience. Every line is true and the student can point to where it happened. The page is one page and has no paragraphs | Everything in Meets, and at least one bullet comes from each of three different units, and the summary line names a specific kind of work rather than a trait, and the student made a revision after the partner check that they can explain in one sentence, naming what an employer can now picture that they could not before |
| **2. The interview** (Topic 7.1; IGLR 3. b), 3. c), 3. d); CCO 3. d); CIR 2. c); Std 3 PI E; CDOS 3a Interpersonal Skills; National FCS 1.2.2, 13.3.2, 13.3.3) | Fewer than four of the seven questions were answered, or the three-part answer was read word for word off the paper with no eye contact at any point, or there was no STAR story, or the observer sheet for the classmate they watched was not completed | All seven questions were answered and a STAR story was attempted, but the three-part answer is missing one of its three parts, or the STAR story has no Result, or there was no greeting and no thank you, or the observer feedback given to a classmate says "good job" with no observable evidence named | Greeted the interviewer, gave their name, shook hands, sat when invited, and said thank you at the end. Answered all six prepared questions and the random seventh. The "tell me about yourself" answer had all three parts and named a skill the student can prove. The STAR story had all four parts including a Result with a number, a time, or a named outcome. As observer, scored a classmate on all six items and wrote one thing to keep and one to change, each naming something actually seen or heard | Everything in Meets, and the answers were delivered without reading, and the student handled the random question with a direct answer rather than narrating confusion, and the STAR story's Result names what changed because of what they did, and the student's own trait self-score from Lesson 7.3 is compared in writing to what the peer observed with one sentence on the difference |
| **3. The business brief and the customer research** (Topic 7.2; PSI 2. a) a., 2. a) d.; IGLR 5. b); CCO 1. a), 5. c); CIR 2. c); CDOS 3a Thinking Skills; National FCS 3.1.2) | The brief does not name a problem, or names a product with no problem behind it, or the FACS module connection is missing or is a module the idea does not actually use, or fewer than two customer interviews were done, or the interview sheet records only "yes" and "no" | The brief names a problem and a product and the module connection sentence exists, but the problem is stated as a want rather than something somebody has, or only two interviews were completed, or the interview answers are the team's summaries instead of the customer's words, or the "what changed" line says "nothing changed" | The brief names the problem, who has it, the product or service, one thing that makes it different, and the FACS module connection in one sentence that says which module and why. Three customer interviews are recorded with the answers in the customer's own words, including at least one quoted phrase per interview. The "what changed" line names one specific thing the team now knows that it did not know before, and one element of the idea was revised because of it | Everything in Meets, and a fourth interview was done outside class, or one interviewee said they would not buy it and the team used that answer rather than discarding it, and the team's self-assessment scores match the teacher's within one point on every criterion, and the team helped another team as consultants without building for them |
| **4. The numbers** (Topic 7.2; IGLR 4. b); FCL 4. c); Std 3 PI C; CDOS 2, 3a Basic Skills; National FCS 2.6.2, 2.5.1) | Unit cost is a single guessed number with no lines behind it, or the arithmetic is wrong in more than one place, or there is no price, or break-even is missing, or the page is unsigned | Unit cost is itemized and price and margin are present, but one line of the unit cost is missing (usually packaging, the bag, or the tag), or break-even was computed by dividing the wrong way, or the projection has a unit number with no reason, or the numbers on panel 4 do not match the numbers on the page | Unit cost is itemized line by line and adds up. The price is set and the team can say where it came from in the customer interviews. Margin per unit is the correct subtraction. Any fixed cost is named. Break-even is computed in units, rounded up to a whole item, and the team can say it as a sentence starting "we stop losing money after." The one-month projection is units times margin minus fixed cost, and the unit count comes with a reason that is not a guess. The CFO signed it and panel 4 matches the page | Everything in Meets, and break-even is computed at two prices with one sentence on what the price change does to the number of units needed, or fixed and variable costs are separated in a labeled column, and the team caught and fixed at least one of its own arithmetic errors during the peer number check, in red, before the teacher saw it |
| **5. The prototype or sample** (Topic 7.2; PSI 2. a) f., 2. a) g.; IGLR 5. b); CDOS 3a Managing Resources; National FCS 2.1.1) | Nothing was built, or what was built is unlabeled and unexplainable, or it uses no skill from this course and the team cannot name a unit | Something was built and a unit was named, but the object does not actually show the skill claimed (a "menu" with no prices, a "floor plan" that is not to scale, a "sewn sample" that is stapled), or it is unfinished in a way that hides what it was supposed to prove | Something exists that a judge can hold, read, or look at. It is built with a skill from this course and the team names which unit in one sentence, correctly: costed to the serving from a real price source, sewn or mended by hand or machine, drawn to scale with measurements, priced line by line, or written as a card a real user could follow. It is finished enough to show what it was meant to show and it is labeled | Everything in Meets, and the prototype was tested or checked against a constraint and the team can name the check (a teammate followed the card and it worked, the plan fits the measured room, the sample held when pulled, the menu comes in under the target cost per serving), and one named improvement was made after that check |
| **6. The pitch** (Topic 7.2; IGLR 3. c), 3. d), 5. b); CIR 1. f), 6. f); PSI 1. e); CDOS 3a Interpersonal Skills; National FCS 1.2.6, 1.2.8, 13.3.2) | Fewer than four of the six parts were delivered, or only one team member spoke and no accommodation was on file, or the money was never said out loud, or the pitch ran so far over that the timer ended it before the ask, or no judge question was answered at all | All six parts were delivered but the pitch ran over 60 seconds, or one part was skipped, or the money was said too quietly or too fast to be understood, or the ask was vague ("support us," "what do you think"), or a judge question was answered with "I don't know" and nothing else | All six parts delivered in order: hook, problem, solution, who it is for, the money, the ask. Inside 60 seconds. All three members spoke a part, or a filed accommodation covers a member's part being written and read by a teammate. The money sentence was said out loud and understandably, with a real number in it. The ask names something specific with a number. At least one judge question was answered directly with a number or a quote from the team's own research, not with a restatement of the pitch | Everything in Meets, and the pitch was delivered without reading it start to finish, and the hook was a question or a number rather than a greeting, and the team answered a question it had not planned for with a piece of evidence rather than a guess, and the two revisions made after the Lesson 7.10 peer review are written on the peer review sheet with the reason for each |

**Total: ______ / 24**

Topic 7.1 subtotal (criteria 1 and 2): ______ / 8
Topic 7.2 subtotal (criteria 3 to 6): ______ / 16

Notes for the student (what to keep, what to change the next time you do this for real):

|  |
|---|
|  |
|  |
|  |

## How to use this rubric

- **Hand it out twice.** Criteria 1 and 2 in Lesson 7.5 at the start of Step 4, so students read the descriptors before the interview is scored. The whole rubric in Lesson 7.7, at the project launch, so teams plan against criteria 3 to 6 from the first day. Nothing on this rubric should be a surprise to anybody on any day.
- **Score criteria 1 and 2 inside the last 15 minutes of Lesson 7.5,** from the stapled Topic 7.1 set (resume, three-part answer, STAR planner, peer feedback sheet) plus the teacher's two live marks from the interview rounds: did the three-part answer have all three parts, and did the STAR story have a Result. **Return criteria 1 and 2 at the start of Lesson 7.7** so every student knows where they stand before the project takes over the unit.
- **Score criteria 3, 4, and 5 from the folder and the object at the end of Lesson 7.10 Day 2,** not from the poster on pitch day. The folder is the evidence. **Return them at the door on pitch day,** before teams pitch. A team that knows it earned a 4 on its numbers pitches differently.
- **Score criterion 6 live in Lesson 7.11,** on a clipboard, in the twenty-second swap between teams and never during a pitch. Mark four things only: did all three speak, did it come in at or under 60 seconds, was the money said out loud, did somebody answer a judge question with a number or a quote. Fill the rest of the descriptor from the judge sheets after class.
- **The judge sheets are not the grade and judges are told so.** They are evidence that feeds criterion 6 and they are read before the score is finalized. A judge's low score on a team the teacher watched succeed does not lower the grade; a judge's specific written comment about a team's numbers may raise it.
- **The self-assessment row is filled first, always.** A team whose self-scores land within one point of the teacher's on every criterion earns the Exceeds level on criterion 3 if the rest of that row is met. Honest self-assessment is part of the work and it is the only place on this rubric where the student's own judgment moves the score.
- **Every descriptor is written as what the student or team actually did.** If work does not match any box, pick the closest and write why on the notes line.
- **Accommodations do not cap any score.** A resume that was dictated, a pitch part written and read aloud by a teammate, a pitch delivered to the panel with no audience, a reflection written in a home language, a picture-panel deck, a drawn prototype: all of these can score at 4. Criterion 6's Meets level explicitly says "or a filed accommodation covers a member's part being written and read by a teammate," and the Exceeds level's "without reading it start to finish" is not applied to a student whose accommodation is to read. Write the accommodation on the notes line so the score is defensible later.
- **The one individual exception on the team criteria.** If one student did not do their role's work and the team can name what was not done, that student is scored one level lower on the criterion they owned (CEO criterion 3, CFO criterion 4, CMO criterion 5) and the rest of the team is not penalized. Use this rarely and only with evidence from the planner sheets and the teacher's own observation, never from one teammate's complaint.
- **A student absent on pitch day** is scored on criteria 3, 4, and 5 with the team and on criterion 6 from their written pitch part, per the course grading plan. Nobody loses project points for being sick.
- **A late folder** is accepted with a one-level drop on one criterion, never a zero.
- **Where this score goes.** All 24 points go in the Labs and projects category (40 percent). The Lesson 7.12 year reflection is scored separately and, with this rubric, serves as the course final; there is no unit test for Unit 7 and no final exam.
- **Return the completed rubric with the portfolio in Lesson 7.12,** and have students copy the six numbers onto the portfolio checklist before the folder goes home. The rubric goes home in the folder. Photograph it first, along with the resume and the reflection, for the program's own records.