Here we spent the year reading books and emulating great writers, constructing leads that would make everyone want to read our work, developing a voice that would engage our readers, using our imaginations to make our work unique and important, and, most of all, being honest. And none of that matters. All that matters, it turns out, is that you cite two facts from the reading material in every answer. That gives you full credit. You can compose a “Gettysburg Address” for the 21st century on the apportioned lines in your test booklet, but if you’ve provided only one fact from the text you read in preparation, then you will earn only half credit. In your constructed response—no matter how well written, correct, intelligent, noble, beautiful, and meaningful it is—if you’ve not collected any specific facts from the provided readings (even if you happen to know more information about the chosen topic than the readings provide), then you will get a zero.
I don’t get why writing, OF ALL THINGS, is graded algorithmically. It would be like failing a painter because their painting, while being as beautiful as the Mona Lisa, because it lacked brush strokes of a certain width. That weren’t mentioned in the rubric.
Bullshit. If you have experts (in this case, English teachers) grading the tests, let them grade subjectively. It is not math. There is no one right answer, and I can’t believe someone would think that was a good idea to do it that way.