sales business developmentadmissionscounselling callscrm follow upstudent enrollment
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Track record
35% weight
Check enrolment numbers they personally closed: applications generated, inquiry-to-application ratio, deposits confirmed per intake cycle, and how they tracked it in Salesforce, Slate or Zoho CRM.
Explains the market and buyer they sold to, not just the product
Distinguishes what they closed from what the team closed
Can describe a deal they lost and why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No numbers; cannot describe what they actually sold or to whom.
2
Needs Improvement
Vague attainment; credit for team results is unclear.
3
Satisfactory
Real record with some numbers; attribution occasionally fuzzy.
4
Very Good
Clear numbers and ownership, including honest losses.
5
Excellent
Quotes intake-by-intake enrolment figures, conversion percentages from lead to deposit, and names the CRM dashboard those numbers came from.
02
Evaluation factor
Method and qualification
25% weight
Test how they qualify a prospective student: academic eligibility, budget and scholarship fit, visa or relocation constraints, parental involvement, and when they advise a different programme.
Evidence to listen for
Has a repeatable approach to qualifying and progressing deals
Can walk a real deal from first contact to close
Handles objections with questions rather than scripts
Knows when to disqualify
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No method; pitches at everyone and hopes.
2
Needs Improvement
Weak qualification; deals stall with no diagnosis.
3
Satisfactory
Workable method; inconsistent on complex or long cycles.
4
Very Good
Clear repeatable method; disqualifies early and deliberately.
5
Excellent
Describes a structured counselling flow that screens eligibility and funding early, and cites cases where they redirected or declined a poor-fit applicant.
03
Evaluation factor
Relationships and trust
25% weight
Probe how they keep families engaged across a long decision cycle: follow-up cadence after open days, handling parent objections about fees, placement rates and course outcomes.
Evidence to listen for
Has clients or talent who came back or referred them
Manages a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship
Represents the client's interest, not only the commission
Builds rapport across seniority levels
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Transactional; burns relationships for a close.
2
Needs Improvement
Builds rapport but does not sustain relationships.
3
Satisfactory
Solid relationships; less tested in conflict.
4
Very Good
Repeat business and referrals; handles conflict without damage.
5
Excellent
Gives specific examples of multi-touch follow-up with families, honest answers on placement data, and referrals coming from past enrolled students.
04
Evaluation factor
Drive and resilience
15% weight
Assess stamina through peak admission season: daily call and walk-in volumes, cold inquiry lists, rejection from committed prospects, and behaviour when the intake target slips.
Evidence to listen for
Handles rejection and a bad quarter without unravelling
Self-directed on pipeline rather than waiting for leads
Coachable on feedback
Honest in how they represent the product and themselves
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Gives up easily; blames leads, product, or market.
2
Needs Improvement
Motivation depends on momentum; resistant to coaching.
3
Satisfactory
Steady; recovers from setbacks with support.
4
Very Good
Self-motivated, coachable, and steady through bad stretches.
5
Excellent
Describes concrete daily activity volumes during deadline weeks and a specific recovery push after falling behind on an intake target.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
