This week's Time magazine has a great article on intelligence, achievement, testing and the new SAT exam.

What it said about the differences in grading essays (particularly grading done by non-professionals) has made me re-evaluate my reviewing philosophy in the Library. Short form: When fifteen amateurs graded the same papers on a one-to-six scale, bad papers would be graded anywhere from one to four and good papers from three to six. Obviously, the scores weren't enormously useful!

In the Library, that would equate to a good story getting any rating from a five to a ten, depending on reviewer preference. Makes me glad I'm not a writer!