The aesthetic judgments of experts (casting directors and high school drama teachers), theater buffs, and novices were compared as they rated the videotaped performances of high school students performing Shakespearean monologues. Focus was on going beyond the determination of between-judge agreement to determine whether there were objective criteria that could differentiate the group ratings of the students. Three questions were posed: (1) whether the item calibrations for the experts, theatre buffs, and novices were significantly different; (2) whether the contestant ratings differed; and (3) whether the groups differed in the harshness with which they rated abilities. The judge sample (N=27) included nine experts, nine theatre buffs, and nine novices, with each expert being matched with a theatre buff and novice of the same sex and approximately the same age and level of education. All of the judges viewed eight high school students' videotaped performances of 2-minute long monologues twice, rated the videotapes, and completed the 36-item Judging Acting Ability Inventory developed for this study. One month later, each judge viewed the same eight videotapes of the student performances twice, and again completed the rating and sorting tasks. With a few exceptions, theatre buffs and novices were as capable as experts in using the rating standards when they were explicit and in comprehensible language. Experts did rate some performances differently, showing evidence of multiple criteria for judging a performance. Experts also rated performers more harshly, suggesting the application of more professional standards. Implications for the study of expertise in aesthetic judgment are discussed. Eight tables and four graphs illustrate the study. (SLD)