How do we evaluate applications at GrowthX?

Do not index

CTA Headline

CTA Description

CTA Button Link

I am a law only for my kind, I am no law for all.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

There are various definitions of a holistic assessment. Still, almost all of them agree that, at its core, it’s about getting as much information as possible to the reviewer/curator about what an applicant is bringing to the community. If implemented appropriately, it can support a fair, inclusive, & incremental process that helps identify applicants that effectively meet mutual outcomes, needs, and goals. To understand how we look at assessments, we must first understand GrowthX, the community, and all the learning initiatives/experiences.

What is GrowthX?

The one-liner → A social learning platform for the top 1% growth leaders. The Elevator pitch “ GrowthX is a community of top business professionals accelerating their careers and companies. Right from early → mid → leadership roles at top product organizations” GrowthX gives folks the ability + motivation to drive accelerated outcomes. Here's how —

Enabling ability — By learning from top practitioners, not professors

Accelerating motivation — Peer-led learning and an enriching community

Redefining outcomes — Coaching, personal branding and access to top companies

Who are the GrowthX members?

On the date of writing this piece, the community consists of 2629 members, out of which 33% are founders & leaders, 35% are product leaders & operators, 25% are marketing leaders & operators, and the 7-8% are folks with a varied background some doctors, lawyers, software devs, consultants, VCs we even have a ISRO scientist who worked on the PSLV. Together, we strive to create an environment that values practical outcomes, innate curiosity, and establishes a profound sense of belonging for each community member. Our shared drive to understand and solve growth problems brings us together.

What does learning look like in GrowthX?

Multiple learning formats & variety of objectives, the umbrella thought around learning is simple.

Learn a specific skill from the best operators in the world.

Learn from case studies & apply mental models to real products.

Learn from curated peers with sometimes contrary perspectives.

Learning by applying everything at your workplace & learning from experiments.

Finding joy in building a new social circle with extremely empathetic members.

On the global stage, GrowthX's 8-week immersion is unparalleled regarding its impact on the companies these professionals work for. This year alone, over 300+ founders in GrowthX drove a cumulative revenue of $150 million (₹1200 Cr); we are not even getting into the revenue impact made by every other leader and operator in the community. In 2023, we launched a new hybrid learning format “CRAFTs”. These 2/3 week long programs are designed to help founders, product managers & marketers solve specific problems at work and build muscle on different aspects of a growth role. They are built with just one thing in mind: practical outcomes at work. The community decides the problem statement, we identify top practitioners, and we work closely with them to develop frameworks that can be implemented at work on a Monday morning to drive an impact for our members.

Now that we’ve understood the core membership, let’s understand how we use rubrics to curate new members.

What are rubrics?

A rubric is commonly defined as a tool that articulates the expectations for an assignment/assessment by listing criteria & each criterion, describing levels of quality. Too hard to understand, we know — let’s simplify this.

Imagine a business school trying to admit top students into their programs. They will look at a few things.

Evidence & information from multiple sources to gauge applicants’ knowledge, skills, experiences, and personal attributes.

Use threshold scores that are determined using only measures of academic experience and cognitive skills, such as GPA, board exam marks, GRE / GMAT test scores.

Give thought to the weighting of various components of the application, the order in which those components are reviewed, and who reviews them, to make the process as equitable and fair as possible

Some even use rubrics to help ensure that curators/reviewers evaluate applicants consistently and in alignment with program goals. Here’s an example of a university looking to prioritize applicants who only have research experience:

Component	Maximum points	Point values
Research	5	3 - 1 year UG + work/internship research 2 - 1 year of UG research 0-1 = less than a year 1-2 extra points for publications, posters, awards, etc.
Letters of Recommendation	3	3 - very strong letters 2 - moderately strong letters 1 - below average letters -1 - red flag in letters
Work exp/CV	3	2 - 2+ relevant years of expereince 1 - 1-2 years of relevant years of exp 1 extra for volunteer work
Undergrad curriculum	2	1 - extensive science coursework 1 extra for extra credits for curriculum being the top globally
GPA	4	4 - 3.7 to 4 3 - 3.4 to 3.69 2 - 3.2 to 3.39 1 - 3.0 to 3.19
Personal statement of purpose	3	2 - suggests strong fit 1 - suggests good fit 0 - unclear fit -1 - poor fit 1 extra point for hardships, disadvantages
GRE scores	4	Leaving this out
Total	25	20-25 - Strong admit 17-19 - Admit 14-16 - Probable admit 10-13 - Probable deny 0-9 - deny

It’s wise to note that a rubric is intended as the beginning of a discussion, not the source of a firm admit/deny decision. Admission committees then reach final decisions through discussion and consensus involving faculty, program directors, coordinators, and administrators.

Remember that this process is over a long period, mostly with the least interaction with the university admissions team you are applying to. You are given vague answers for every step and even vaguer answers for not being fit or being a red flag.

This seems like a lot to process. We reviewed what GrowthX is & how applications are processed in general business schools. We’ll deep dive into how we evaluate applicants at GrowthX.

We call it the SER rubric.

S - Significant Contribution E - Empathy R - Resourcefulness

Why are we checking for these broadly?

We’ve identified ‌this pattern - positive communities result from extremely empathetic people trying to help each other. Plus, resourcefulness is a core trait for anyone building a compounding career - ask any leader you've ever worked with. A significant contribution is a direct signal for us to understand if you would act on the knowledge/ connections you will earn once you are inside the community.

How are we checking for these?

We have a simple application form that allows us to measure the relevancy of the outcomes our applicants want to achieve and the impact GrowthX can have on them. This means we do not accept applicants who we can’t give an extremely high ROI, period. Next, we invite applicants to a jamming session. This slightly higher commitment action helps us gauge if we attract only the highest intent applicants. The jamming session is designed to emulate how a boardroom at a product organization would solve a growth problem. Applicants are given a problem statement and some relevant information about the problem statement. They are then advised to use the internet and build their own diagnosis of the problem. Along with the membership team, the applicants jam on the problem, trying to reach an experiment/solution. We finally cool down with a short round of getting to know what they do in their personal lives, anything they feel comfortable sharing.

The format allows us to measure —

Behavior in a peer-led situation (core to the community)

Approach to problem-solving in a professional setup (analytical ability)

Interest in solving ANY growth problem for ANY product (curiosity)

Resourcefulness when they are given less time to research, diagnose, and build an experiment - which is generally the case for any business decision

Willingness to share/collaborate with peers

Choice of words, candor, presence on a professional call

Here’s what the GrowthX rubric table looks like —

Component	Significant Contribution	Empathy	Resourcefulness
First degree	Provides a statistically significant perspective to the conversation	Non-defensive attitude	Adding value by listening carefully to others’ points
ㅤ	Backing up someone else with relevant data	Cognisant of others’ time	Effective time management
ㅤ	Influences the conversation	Zoom call etiquette	Asking questions to clarify
ㅤ	Influences the conversation multiple times	Mindful of other peers’ contributions	Asking the right questions about the problem
ㅤ	Providing an incremental point to the conversation	Beginners mindset	Structured thought process with clear problem identification
ㅤ	Providing a statistically significant contrary perspective to the conversation	Willingness to collaborate	ㅤ
Second degree	Quality of point mentioned vs time used	Being open to disagreements	Being able to give pros and cons to experiments
ㅤ	Sharing their knowledge with other participants	self-awareness	Finding data quickly
ㅤ	Structured thought process with clear problem identification	ㅤ	Clarity in Assumptions vs Reality
Third degree	Originality	Cons & blockers for experiments/solutions	listening intently and providing value to their peers
ㅤ	Relevant answer to the section	listening intently and providing value to their peers	Finding relevant data
ㅤ	Jargon less conversation	The tone of voice while arguing or rebuttal	ㅤ
ㅤ	ㅤ	Patience	ㅤ
ㅤ	ㅤ	Calmness	ㅤ
Max points	7	7	7

Points table that we use for the rubric

Component	Maximum points	Point values
Significant Contribution	7	5 - If it’s a primary Root cause identified of the problem statement, backed up with data, 4 - If it’s secondary root cause identified of the problem statement, backed up with data 2-3 - If it’s a primary/secondary/tertiary Root cause of the problem statement 1-2 - Not a root cause but an industry problem 0 - Not a relevant answer to the discussion 1-2 extra points for examples, and mentioned in the time given to them without using any jargon -1,2 points for not making any relevant points even after taking time, or rephrase the problem statement
Empathy	7	4-5 - Willingness to collaborate, user understanding, peer understanding, perfect choice of words and tone, humble, not repeating others’ points, 2-3 - User understanding, peer understanding, cognizant of others time 0-1- Willingness to collaborate, 1-2 extra points for zoom etiquette, videos on, mics on only while speaking, patient, self-awareness, -1,2 points for being aggressive, argumentative, not giving others time, not appreciating others’ points, and not following any ground rules
Resourcefulness	7	4-5 - Relevant data in the time provided, asking relevant questions to the problem, 2-3 - Clarity in assumptions vs reality 0-1 - Listening actively 1-2 extra points for being able to listen to peers and understand a problem not being explored, data that needs to be found based on ad-hoc, explaining a structure to approach problem-solving that has worked for them -1,2 points for mentioning wrong data, or factually wrong inferences, quoting just from an article without truth-seeking
Total	21	16-21 - Strong fit 11-15 - Good fit 8-10 - Probable fit 5-8 - Probable deny 0-4 - Waitlist

Once the jamming session is done, the membership team spends 1-2 hours discussing each applicant, outcomes, and jamming session performance before making a final decision. This process allows us to understand better our applicants and who we think would be the right fit for the community.

How do we evaluate applications?