The core problem in the blog post is the (perceived) arbitrary judgement of the value of the work. Let's suppose the parent evaluation is right, which is not s

The core problem in the blog post is the (perceived) arbitrary judgement of the value of the work. Let's suppose the parent evaluation is right, which is not self evident given how the emotional attachments impairs judgement. The article says the work was poorly graded because the paper was not of the "right size". We can suppose that the grader either a) didn't have the time to properly grade b) had to follow strict and pointless rules even if they were evidently stupid c) had a poor judgement. The c case is the biggest problem - when an evaluation fonction returns wrong results. b and a could be special cases of c (not having a schedule or following stupid rules could be having a poor judgement) Now let's think for a minute than N% of the graders are giving results that are no better than random assessment of the pupils. Given how, in a schoolchildren life, a number of educators will be met, N% of the results will be meaningless (apply statistics, SD, etc.) Now think of those randomly declared having "good grades" become graders (teachers) themselves. I wonder how the equilibrium works out in a society - at which value of N will society turn education from acquiring knowledge to jumping through hoods and having a certificate in witchcraft (replace witchcraft by anything you think is wrong and pointless) [Even worse- think, if for example the school district is poor and recruts graders of a lesser quality, that this raises to (N+X)%]