STUDENTS NAME:
MAJOR PLATE TITLE:
PROJECT ISSUES
DESIGN CONCEPT 10%
ACCEPTABILITY AND SUCCESSFUL
TRANSLATION OF THE DESIGN
CONCEPT
SITE DEV’T PLAN 15%
SOUNDNESS OF THE SITE DEV’T
PLAN, TRAFFIC CIRCULATION,
SEGREGATION, ZONING OF
AREAS, LANDSCAPING
FLOOR PLANS 30%
SOUNDNESS & CREATIVITY OF THE
FLOOR PLANS: CIRCULATION,
SEGREGATION, ZONING OF
AREAS
ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS 20%
INNOVATIVE AND EFFECTIVE
INTERPRETATION OF ELEVATIONS
AND SECTIONS BASED ON THE
DESIGN CONCEPT
PERSPECTIVES 10%
COMPETENT TRANSLATION OF
EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR
PERSPECTIVES
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY 5%
CREATIVE INTEGRATION OF
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
OVERALL PRESENTATION 10%
OVERALL CORRECTNESS OF
DRAWINGS AND CREATIVITY OF
PRESENTATION
TOTAL
GRADE
TRANSMUTED GRADE
STUDENTS NAME:
MAJOR PLATE TITLE:
PROJECT ISSUES
DESIGN CONCEPT 10%
ACCEPTABILITY AND SUCCESSFUL
TRANSLATION OF THE DESIGN
CONCEPT
SITE DEV’T PLAN 15%
SOUNDNESS OF THE SITE DEV’T
PLAN, TRAFFIC CIRCULATION,
SEGREGATION, ZONING OF
AREAS, LANDSCAPING
FLOOR PLANS 30%
SOUNDNESS & CREATIVITY OF THE
FLOOR PLANS: CIRCULATION,
SEGREGATION, ZONING OF
AREAS
ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS 20%
INNOVATIVE AND EFFECTIVE
INTERPRETATION OF ELEVATIONS
AND SECTIONS BASED ON THE
DESIGN CONCEPT
PERSPECTIVES 10%
COMPETENT TRANSLATION OF
EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR
PERSPECTIVES
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY 5%
CREATIVE INTEGRATION OF
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
OVERALL PRESENTATION 10%
OVERALL CORRECTNESS OF
DRAWINGS AND CREATIVITY OF
PRESENTATION
TOTAL
GRADE
TRANSMUTED GRADE
LESS EVIDENT FAIRLY EVIDENT
50-74% 75-83%
5 6 7 7.5 8 8.5
Design concept
Work did not reflect any expressed, although its
design concept or relationship to the Design
character; the work had Philosophy and its
no conceptual basis translation had obvious
inconsistencies
7.5 9 11 11.5 12 12.5
There was an attempt to
Work did not show any
put the site in order, but a
logical planning approach
number of incoherent
or strategy
solutions were committed
15 18 22 22.5 23 24
The work showed an
attempt to design: spaces
The work showed poor and were logically acceptable
unacceptable layout of but had violations in
floor plans design standards, bldg.
code, and other related
national/local laws
10 12 14.5 15 16 16.5
The work showed an
attempt to design the
The work showed poor and
vertical aspect; logically
inconsistent interpretation
acceptable but had
of elevations and sections
inconsistencies with the
floor plans
5 6 7 7.5 8 8.5
The work showed an
The work showed poor and attempt to interpret the
inconsistent interpretation design in 3D form but had
of the exterior and interior inconsistencies with the
perspectives floor plans, elevs., and
sections
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
The work did not integrate The work integrated minor
any innovative technology innovative technology
5 6 7 7.5 8 8.5
The work did not observe The work met the minimum
drafting standards, untidy, acceptable design
and did not meet basic presentation but had
acceptable presentation several drafting errors
BELOW
75 75-78 79-81 82-83 84-86 87-88
5.00 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00
LESS EVIDENT FAIRLY EVIDENT
50-74% 75-83%
5 6 7 7.5 8 8.5
Design concept
Work did not reflect any expressed, although its
design concept or relationship to the Design
character; the work had Philosophy and its
no conceptual basis translation had obvious
inconsistencies
7.5 9 11 11.5 12 12.5
There was an attempt to
Work did not show any
put the site in order, but a
logical planning approach
number of incoherent
or strategy
solutions were committed
15 18 22 22.5 23 24
The work showed an
attempt to design: spaces
The work showed poor and were logically acceptable
unacceptable layout of but had violations in
floor plans design standards, bldg.
code, and other related
national/local laws
10 12 14.5 15 16 16.5
The work showed an
attempt to design the
The work showed poor and
vertical aspect; logically
inconsistent interpretation
acceptable but had
of elevations and sections
inconsistencies with the
floor plans
5 6 7 7.5 8 8.5
The work showed an
The work showed poor and attempt to interpret the
inconsistent interpretation design in 3D form but had
of the exterior and interior inconsistencies with the
perspectives floor plans, elevs., and
sections
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
The work did not integrate The work integrated minor
any innovative technology innovative technology
5 6 7 7.5 8 8.5
The work did not observe The work met the minimum
drafting standards, untidy, acceptable design
and did not meet basic presentation but had
acceptable presentation several drafting errors
BELOW
75 75-78 79-81 82-83 84-86 87-88
5.00 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00
YEAR & SECTION:
STUDENT NUMBER:
VERY EVIDENT EXCEPTIONALLY REMARKS
EVICENT
84-91% 92-100%
9 9.5 10
Design concept was
Design Concept was very
clearly related to the
clearly related to the
Design Philosophy,
Design Philosophy, well
explained and translated
explained and successfully
in the work, with very minor
translated in the work
inconsistencies
13 13.5 14 15
The site was well planned,
site constraints were The solution demonstrated
solved, maximized the site exemplary site planning in
potentials with some minor all aspects
flaws
25 26.5 27.5 28 29 30
The work was well-
The work was almost
designed, coherent,
faultless, exhibited fresh
followed the standards
ideas in design and had
and codes but was
consistently followed the
observed to have some
codes and standards
minor design faults
17 17.5 18 18.5 19
The work was well-
The work was almost
designed, coherent,
faultless, exhibited fresh
followed the standards
ideas in design and had
and codes but was
consistently followed the
observed to have some
codes and standards
minor design faults
9 9.5 10
The work was well-
The work was very
designed, coherent, but
impressive, almost faultless,
was observed to have
exhibited fresh ideas in
some very minor design
design and 3D rendering
faults
5
The work integrated The work creatively
several technological integrated appropriate
innovations technological innovations
9 9.5 10
The work was The presentation was very
commendable, neat, commendable, well-
impressive, but had some presented, very neat and
minor drafting errors had no drafting errors
89-91 92-93 94-95 96-100
1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00
YEAR & SECTION:
STUDENT NUMBER:
VERY EVIDENT EXCEPTIONALLY REMARKS
EVICENT
84-91% 92-100%
9 9.5 10
Design concept was
Design Concept was very
clearly related to the
clearly related to the
Design Philosophy,
Design Philosophy, well
explained and translated
explained and successfully
in the work, with very minor
translated in the work
inconsistencies
13 13.5 14 15
The site was well planned,
site constraints were The solution demonstrated
solved, maximized the site exemplary site planning in
potentials with some minor all aspects
flaws
25 26.5 27.5 28 29 30
The work was well-
The work was almost
designed, coherent,
faultless, exhibited fresh
followed the standards
ideas in design and had
and codes but was
consistently followed the
observed to have some
codes and standards
minor design faults
17 17.5 18 18.5 19
The work was well-
The work was almost
designed, coherent,
faultless, exhibited fresh
followed the standards
ideas in design and had
and codes but was
consistently followed the
observed to have some
codes and standards
minor design faults
9 9.5 10
The work was well-
The work was very
designed, coherent, but
impressive, almost faultless,
was observed to have
exhibited fresh ideas in
some very minor design
design and 3D rendering
faults
5
The work integrated The work creatively
several technological integrated appropriate
innovations technological innovations
9 9.5 10
The work was The presentation was very
commendable, neat, commendable, well-
impressive, but had some presented, very neat and
minor drafting errors had no drafting errors
89-91 92-93 94-95 96-100
1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00