6 Common Scholarship Awarding Mistakes to Avoid Next Cycle

The scholarship review and awarding process is a critical moment of truth. It’s where all the effort—promotion, applications, eligibility screening—culminates in real financial aid going to real students.

But it’s also where institutions can unintentionally undermine the fairness, transparency, and impact of their programs.

From confusing rubrics to inconsistent review panels, even well-intentioned scholarship teams can make missteps that frustrate applicants, disengage reviewers, or lead to donor dissatisfaction.

This post outlines six awarding mistakes to avoid—and how small changes can build trust, reduce risk, and improve outcomes.

Using Vague or Inconsistent Review Rubrics

Your rubric is your roadmap. If it’s not clear—or if different reviewers interpret it differently—you risk inconsistent scoring and potential bias.

Common pitfalls:

• Rubrics with vague language (e.g., “strong community involvement”)
• No guidance on how to score different types of responses
• Inadequate calibration among reviewers

How to fix it:

• Create a detailed scoring guide with sample answers
• Host a 30-minute reviewer orientation before the cycle begins
• Require reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest before scoring

Why it matters: Consistent rubrics create fairness—and protect your program from challenges or complaints.

Relying Too Heavily on GPA or Test Scores

Academic achievement matters—but it’s not the only indicator of merit or need. Overemphasizing GPA can exclude capable students with high financial need or unique life circumstances.

What to watch for:

• Scholarships that automatically screen out students below a certain GPA
• Rubrics that disproportionately reward academic metrics without context
• Lack of space for students to explain gaps or challenges

What to do instead:

• Allow holistic scoring that includes resilience, service, or leadership
• Offer optional context sections in the application
• Use GPA as a guide, not a gatekeeper

Why it matters: Equity in awarding means recognizing a broader definition of student success—especially for first-gen and nontraditional learners.

Not Having a Back-Up Plan for Unawarded Funds

Sometimes no one applies for a scholarship—or the applicant pool doesn’t meet the eligibility criteria. If you don’t have a fallback strategy, funds go unused.

Common causes:

• Overly narrow eligibility requirements
• Inflexible fund rules
• Lack of promotion for niche awards

How to fix it:

• Build in secondary selection criteria (e.g., if no applicants meet criteria A, consider criteria B)
• Flag low-application funds early and re-promote them mid-cycle
• Ask your advancement or foundation office to review fund flexibility

Why it matters: Unused scholarship funds undermine donor trust and delay critical student support.

Making the Review Process Too Manual

If your team is still juggling PDFs, Excel files, or printed applications, your process is at risk for errors, miscommunications, and burnout.

Signs your process needs improvement:

• Reviewers ask where to find materials
• Review scores have to be transcribed manually
• You spend hours organizing and reformatting applications

How to modernize:

• Use a scholarship management platform like AwardSpring to centralize review
• Automate scoring and reviewer assignments
• Track progress in real time and prevent duplicate work

Why it matters: Streamlining reviews gives your team time to focus on high-impact decisions—not administrative chaos.

Failing to Communicate Decisions Clearly and Promptly

Awarding decisions are high-stakes for students. When communication is delayed, confusing, or inconsistent, it leads to frustration—and lost trust in the institution.

Common communication mistakes:

• Vague award notices (“You have received a scholarship”)
• No information about when or how funds will be disbursed
• Silence for students who didn’t receive awards

Better practices:

• Create email templates for both awarded and non-awarded students
• Include next steps, disbursement timelines, and contact info
• Make decisions searchable in the student portal

Why it matters: Good communication shows professionalism and care—two key factors in building student trust and engagement.

6. Ignoring Donor Stewardship After Awards Are Made

Once awards are granted, some teams move on—but your donors are still watching. If they don’t hear about the impact of their scholarship, they may reduce or withdraw support.

Donor stewardship mistakes include:

• No follow-up reports after the award
• Generic communications that lack personalization
• Missed opportunities to connect donors with student stories

How to fix it:

• Use your scholarship platform to track which students received which funds
• Collect short thank-you notes or testimonials from recipients
• Include award data and demographics in end-of-cycle reports

According to the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), personalized donor stewardship improves retention, giving frequency, and average gift size.

Why it matters: Donors want to feel part of the student success story—not just a line item in your budget.

Final Thoughts: Small Fixes, Big Impact

Most awarding mistakes aren’t the result of negligence—they’re the byproduct of limited time, staffing, or systems. The good news? Small improvements can make a big difference.

From clarifying rubrics to streamlining communication and donor follow-up, your team can take practical steps today to build a more equitable, efficient, and donor-friendly awarding process.

AwardSpring is built to support every step of that journey—from simplifying reviewer workflows to tracking donor-designated funds and automating impact reporting.

Learn How AwardSpring Helps You Avoid Common Awarding Pitfalls