I asked a question a little while ago about 'is there the prefect journal article'? This was after a recent 'unique' experience where a research article that I submitted was accepted by all three reviewers - as 'accept without revision'. That's great, and I'm not complaining, but when I 're-reviewed it myself', I found fault with it that I would have picked up as a reviewer. Much as I believe that there is no such thing as the 'perfect article' - I also extend that, as a lecturer, there is no such thing as the 'perfect student assignment'.
I accept that marking student assignment ideally shouldn't be a personal or subjective matter - but, on the other hand, I contend that it is. I've been marking student assignments, dissertations, theses etc for over 20-years - and only a handful I have awarded more than 90%. That last 10%, I believe, is open to the most abuse in marking. Is that a mistake on my part - or is it that 'excellence' is a subjective and ethereal matter? I once marked an MPhil thesis that I gave 75% for (and 5-pages of feedback) which I thought was more than reasonable. The other marker gave 97% (and half a page of feedback). I'm not saying that I was more correct in my marking - but marks of that range (to me) raise alarm bells i.e. 97% means 'almost perfect' and, therefore, 'barely no room for improvement' and 'completely publishable'. Does that create immense pressure on students to continue to perform at that level - or does it create an environment where students are 'destined to fail'? If a marker says 97% - and a publisher says 'reject' or 'improve' - where does that leave both the student and lecturer?