This article presents the author's critique of R. Stephen RiCharde's argument in his essay on the humanities and interrater reliability in the July-August 2008 issue of "Assessment Update." RiCharde suggests that the humanities' historical commitment to a dialectical pedagogy, a "nonlinear" process that values disagreement and debate, is at odds with "conventional linear methods" of learning measurement embodied most conspicuously in the demand that measurers maintain consensus about the value of the work they measure. RiCharde's analysis, according to Flick, has a number of problems, several of which obscure the issues he takes up in a series of unhelpful reifications and misplaced emphases. Here, Flick attempts to expose these issues in a more useful way and thereby refocuses the debate on the problems that more truly confront educators as they conduct outcomes assessment in the humanities and elsewhere. The author contends that RiCharde makes a mistake common to many assessment discontents in suggesting that the process of collecting information about student learning and using it to document and improve learning necessarily leads to standardization of instruction. Flick suggests that measurement is not the problem RiCharde seems to think it is. Rubrics are ways of turning qualitative data into quantitative data, and teachers routinely do this during the grading process.