An "A" expertise speech approaches its subject in creative and innovative ways with an argument that is compelling both visually and verbally. Such a talk achieves significant persuasive goals that could not have been realized only working on paper. However, much like an "A" research paper written for any other upper-division course, an "A" expertise speech has a clearly articulated thesis, displays substantial research and thoughtful engagement, and uses a variety of types of sources. Design decisions demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of media production, and the effectiveness of the project is uncompromised by technical problems.The project applies principles from the study of media, design, and rhetoric aptly.

The approach to the topic of study is insightful, and/or creative, persuasive, unique, and worth developing; the level of thinking/analysis is strong.

A "B" expertise speech approaches its subject in coherent and logical ways with an argument that is competent both visually and verbally. Such a project uses multimodal composition to improve on a point that could also have been made on paper. However, much like a "B" research paper written for any other upper-division course, a "B" speech demonstrates that the student can present him or herself as a credible source on a topic and write coherent and engagng arguments that are supported by additional material and satisfactory evidence. Design decisions are deliberate and controlled, and there are very few technical problems.

The approach is acceptable, reasonable, thoughtful; the level of thinking/analysis is appropriate.

A "C" expertise speech approaches its subject in a generic or uneven manner with an argument that is satisfactory both visually and verbally. Such a project may barely meet the most basic research criteria. Often "C" talks only partially develop arguments, fail to go beyond shallow analysis, leave ideas and generalizations undeveloped or unsupported, and make limited use of textual or visual evidence. Design decisions sometimes appear arbitrary or distracting, and there may be noticeable technical problems. It may rely overly much on clichés or stereotypes and use stock images inappropriately.

The approach is occasionally adequate; some evidence of thinking/analysis, or an attempt at analysis, is evident; the ideas offered are intermittently delineated, thought-through, and appropriate to the task

A "D" expertise speech approaches its subject with little evidence of careful thought and time spent on revision and editing. The argument it is presenting is confused or noticeably biased. It may lack required elements of an Ignite-style talk; it may inappropriately cite or use sources. Parts of the project may be illegible or difficult to hear. Design decisions appear accidental.

The approach is inadequate or confusing; little or no evidence of critical thinking and analysis are evident; although some of the ideas may be worthwhile, the level of insight and clarity of presentation are lacking; the speaker does not take into account other facets or perspectives, or does so in an inappropriate or simplistic manner. It may disregard the university's principles of community.

An "F" speech is incomplete, plagiarized, or in violation of university policies on hate speech.