At least that's better than what I feared would happen, and that is that the grading would be based on whether the writer was parroting enough of the current PC shibboleths.

The only way to test 'writing' is to test it in conjunction with something else, not standing on its own. One can test writing ability as part of a history exam or a Literature exam, but one cannot tell anything from writing in a vacuum where even simple accuracy is irrelevant.

In the real world, when we are called upon to write, we do so to provide an answer to a specific question or to achieve a specific goal. Thus, when we are tested for how well we write, we should be examined on how well what we say answers a particular question or achieves a specific goal. That involves the ability to state a proposition, marshall facts to support it, analyze and reject contrary positions and reach a conclusion.

Anything else is a waste of time. Although an examination that rewards verbosity would certainly inure to my advantage.:)

It turns out that 'short' is 100 words and 'long' is 400 words.

There was an excellent discussion of this at pharyngula.org, and one reasonable hypothesis was that 100-word 'essays' could scarcely meet the criterion of developing a theme, so that the good marks naturally went to longer essays.

The debate there, however, was mostly over whether the student should be marked down for having facts wrong. That would be irrelevant here.

If you can't state and defend a theme in 100 words or less you don't belong in college. The last thing the world needs is excessive verbiage with a pedigree.

The test rewards excessive verbiage and the accuracy of the facts are irrelevant. Everything you need to predict success at a US liberal arts college.

That's true if your answer to every question is, 'The Big Spook did it.'

If the topic is more complex than that, you might need more words.

The overlength of an answer is directly related to (1) a lack of understanding of the question; (2) an inability to express thoughts clearly; and (3) a sense of self-importance, rarely, if ever, justified.

oj,

I'll keep that in mind the next time I read some Tolstoy. LOL!

bart:

That's why no one reads Tolstoy.

Two hundred and sixty eight words ought to be enough for anyone*. Get either reference correct & Orrin will neglect so send you a book.

Neglect TO send you a book. Should have been decline to send you a book, but I neglected to proofread. Get both references and he'll elect not to send you two books.

Just so.