Rubric Maker

Model UN Rubric Template

A ready-to-use, analytic model UN rubric for Model United Nations conference or in-class simulation (delegate performance) (Grades 8–12). Score a delegate on country-accurate policy, preparation, negotiation, and contribution to a resolution — separately from how loudly or confidently they speak. Edit it for your own assignment, print it, download it as a Word file, or share a link with your students.

Edit this template in the maker →

The model UN rubric

CriterionExcellent (4)Proficient (3)Developing (2)Beginning (1)
Country policy accuracy & staying in roleEvery position taken matches the assigned country's documented policy, including on points where that policy is unpopular in the room; never breaks character to argue a personal view.Positions consistently match the assigned country; one moment of drift on a minor sub-issue, corrected or not repeated.The broad national position is right but specific stances are improvised; drifts toward whatever the majority bloc wants on at least two issues.Argues personal or generic opinions rather than the country's position, or takes stances the assigned country would publicly oppose.
Preparation & position paperPosition paper covers the country's history with the topic, its current policy, and proposed solutions, with specific treaties, dates, votes, or figures cited; brings prepared notes and uses them.Position paper covers background, policy, and solutions with some specifics cited; preparation is visible in committee, with one thin section.Position paper states a general stance but relies on broad claims with few verifiable specifics; preparation runs out partway through committee.Position paper is missing, late, or generic enough to fit any country; no evidence of research when questioned in committee.
Speeches & use of parliamentary procedureSpeeches make one clear argument in the time allowed and respond to what was just said; uses motions, points, and yields correctly and at moments that advance debate.Speeches are organized and on-topic; procedure is used correctly with occasional prompting from the chair.Speeches restate the position without developing it or responding to others; motions are attempted but frequently out of order or mistimed.Speaks rarely or reads the position paper aloud without adapting; does not attempt procedure, or attempts are consistently ruled out of order.
Negotiation, blocs & diplomatic conductSeeks out delegations with differing views, finds shared language, and brings at least one previously opposed delegation into a working group; disagrees without dismissing other delegates.Works productively within a bloc and negotiates specific clause changes; engages mostly with delegations that already agree.Joins a bloc but contributes little to shaping it; conversations restate positions rather than trading concessions.Works alone, talks over other delegates, or negotiates by pressure and insult rather than by offering anything in exchange.
Resolution writing & contribution to the working paperAuthors or co-authors specific operative clauses that survive into the final draft; clauses name who acts, what they do, and how it is funded or monitored, in correct resolution format.Contributes written clauses that make it into a working paper; format is correct with minor slips, and one clause is vague about implementation.Suggests ideas verbally that others write up; contributed language is general (calls for cooperation) without a mechanism, or format needs substantial correction.Makes no identifiable contribution to any working paper or resolution, or signs on to a document without adding to it.

Four levels — Excellent (4) to Beginning (1). Print this page, or open it in the editor to change the wording, levels, or points.

How to use this rubric

Model UN grades badly by default because the loudest delegate looks like the best one. A rubric fixes that only if it scores the things a quiet, well-prepared student can also do: research that shows up in a position paper, clauses that end up in the resolution, a bloc partner won over in unmoderated caucus. This rubric keeps country accuracy as its own row — the delegate who abandons their country's actual policy to win the room has done the assignment wrong, no matter how well they spoke — and keeps speaking skill in a single row rather than letting it leak into every category. Hand it out with the topic background guide so students know that the position paper and the resolution language are worth as much as floor time.

Why these criteria

Each row targets something the assignment is really teaching, with descriptors written to be observable rather than vague:

Country policy accuracy & staying in role
This is the row that separates Model UN from debate club: the delegate argues their assigned country's real position, not their own opinion. Grading it explicitly stops the student who wins the room by abandoning the country.
Preparation & position paper
Grades the work done before the conference — the research the delegate can point to — so that a well-prepared quiet student is not outscored by an unprepared confident one.
Speeches & use of parliamentary procedure
Combines what the delegate says with whether they can move committee forward using the rules — motions, points, yields — which is a learnable skill rather than a personality trait.
Negotiation, blocs & diplomatic conduct
Unmoderated caucus is where most Model UN work actually happens. This row rewards building agreement across delegations rather than dominating the floor.
Resolution writing & contribution to the working paper
Separates being heard from leaving a mark on the document — the committee's actual output. It credits written clauses, which are checkable after the fact.

How to adapt it

Frequently asked questions

How do I grade a delegate whose assigned country has an unpopular position?
That is the assignment, and this rubric is built to reward it. A delegate representing a country that blocks the majority resolution should score at the top of 'Country policy accuracy' for holding that line, and can still score at the top of 'Negotiation' by extracting amendments in exchange for abstaining rather than voting no. Tell students this before the conference — otherwise the ones with hard assignments assume they cannot score well and give up.
Should I grade awards or placement at an outside conference?
No. Outside awards depend on committee size, chair preference, and who else is in the room — none of which the student controls. Grade what you can observe or read: the position paper, the resolution or working paper with their clauses in it, and their own reflection on what they traded away in caucus. If you cannot attend, ask for a delegate log listing each speech, motion, and negotiation with the delegation involved.
What is the difference between this and a debate rubric?
A debate rubric grades winning an argument for an assigned side — rebuttal, refutation, and clash. This one grades representing a country, which means the goal is a passed resolution rather than a defeated opponent, and cooperation is scored rather than penalized. Delegates who treat Model UN as debate typically score well on speeches and poorly on negotiation and resolution writing, which is exactly the feedback they need.
How many delegates can one person realistically grade at once?
Roughly eight to ten in a live committee, if you score one row at a time rather than trying to complete a full rubric per student in the moment. Track speeches and motions on a tally sheet during the session, then fill in country accuracy and negotiation afterward using the working papers and each delegate's log. For a larger committee, grade the paper trail — position paper and resolution clauses — and sample floor performance.

More rubric templates