Interview scorecard template

Economist interview scorecard

Evaluate Economist candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical command, deals and deliverables that closed, risk judgement, and explaining it to decision-makers. Technical command leads at 35%, so check depth in econometric methods: panel fixed effects, instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, VAR or DSGE work, plus fluency in Stata, R, EViews or Python statsmodels. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
finance riskeconometricsforecastingmacro policy analysisstata r python
TL;DR
For technical command, look for evidence the candidate names the identification strategy and diagnostics used, discusses endogeneity and standard error choices without prompting, and cites specific model specifications. For deals and deliverables that closed, look for evidence the candidate points to named deliverables with dates and audiences, including forecast accuracy versus outturn and how findings changed a policy or pricing decision. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
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

Technical command

35% weight

Check depth in econometric methods: panel fixed effects, instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, VAR or DSGE work, plus fluency in Stata, R, EViews or Python statsmodels.

Evidence to listen for

  • Commands the instruments, models, or reporting standards the role turns on
  • Can build the analysis rather than only interpret someone else's
  • Knows the assumptions inside a model and which ones actually drive the answer
  • Fluent in the frameworks and disclosure regimes that apply

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain the instruments or standards they claim to work with.

2
Needs Improvement

Interprets others' analysis but cannot build or defend it.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working command; thin on unfamiliar structures or standards.

4
Very Good

Builds the analysis and knows which assumptions actually move the answer.

5
Excellent

Names the identification strategy and diagnostics used, discusses endogeneity and standard error choices without prompting, and cites specific model specifications.

02
Evaluation factor

Deals and deliverables that closed

25% weight

Probe concrete outputs: published forecasts, regulatory impact assessments, cost-benefit appraisals, expert reports, or quarterly outlooks, and what decision or publication each one fed.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names transactions, filings, or reports they worked, with size, counterparties, and their own scope
  • Distinguishes their contribution from the deal team's
  • Knows what happened afterwards, including what underperformed
  • Can describe one that fell over and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No completed work; describes process rather than outcomes.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in transactions but cannot state their own scope.

3
Satisfactory

Real deliverables with adequate ownership; outcomes described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named transactions or filings with clear personal scope and honest post-mortems.

5
Excellent

Points to named deliverables with dates and audiences, including forecast accuracy versus outturn and how findings changed a policy or pricing decision.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

25% weight

Assess how they handle data limitations and uncertainty: revisions to national accounts, structural breaks, small samples, and how they communicate confidence intervals or scenario ranges.

Evidence to listen for

  • Distinguishes a modelled risk from a real one
  • States confidence and what would change their view
  • Comfortable disagreeing with a number that suits everybody
  • Knows the limits of the data behind a projection, especially over long horizons

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats model output as truth; no sense of data limits.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports numbers without qualifying them; avoids unwelcome conclusions.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

States confidence unprompted and will hold an unpopular position on evidence.

5
Excellent

Distinguishes correlation from causal claims, flags where their estimates would break, and presents scenarios rather than a single false-precision number.

04
Evaluation factor

Explaining it to decision-makers

15% weight

Test the translation to non-economists: briefing ministers, boards, or clients; chart choices; handling challenge from people who dislike the conclusion.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains a technical position to an investment committee, board, or regulator so they can act on it
  • Writes to the standard the audience is held to
  • Handles challenge without either caving or digging in
  • Works across legal, operations, and external counterparties

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate beyond technical peers.

2
Needs Improvement

Explanations lose the audience or oversimplify to the point of error.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate with familiar audiences; less effective under challenge.

4
Very Good

Explains clearly to committees and regulators and holds up under challenge.

5
Excellent

Explains an elasticity, multiplier, or output gap in plain terms, and describes defending a controversial estimate under scrutiny without overstating it.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Economist

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Which fields or sectors of the economy do you specialise in?

  2. 02

    What is your experience with statistical analysis software?

  3. 03

    How familiar are you with economic forecasting and trend analysis?

  4. 04

    Can you describe a time you used economic theory or a model to solve a real-world problem?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience conducting cost-benefit analyses?

See the complete Economist question set
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.

Explore AI Scorecards