Student legislators are judged by a panel of judges who observe their actions for the entire round. Each time a student legislator goes to the well/podium they are rated based on the following parameters during the time spent at the well (including both a speech and responses to questions)

1) delivery of the speech,

2) knowledge of the subject,

3) use of evidence and logic

These ratings contribute to results of a student legislator's performance in a session. The results determine each student legislator's ranking.

The student legislator's final ranking is based on the average of three measures.

1) total effort made at the well - Total of all points given for speeches

2) quality of the effort spent at the well - Average of points earned for speeches

3) overall performance in the session, including motions, questions asked of the student legislator at the well, and professionalism.

This is reflected on the final ranking sheet that the judges turn in.

A student legislator who spoke really well but didn't conduct themselves professionally might suffer in this area.

The goal of this criteria is to allow a student legislator who goes to the well a small number of times but gives high quality speeches and answers, demonstrating a knowledge of parliamentary procedure and a professional demeanor to score as high as an active student legislator who goes to the well a greater number of times with lesser quality speeches/answers & similar parliamentary procedure knowledge with less professionalism.