Two methods of evaluating student writing were compared. Holistic evaluation attempts to assess the overall quality of a composition. It is a guided procedure for sorting or ranking written composition. A rater scores the composition by placing it within the range of papers produced in response to a given assignment. Scoring may also be done using an analytic rating scale. For this study, students were assigned a composition based on data provided thereby prompting analytic writing. Students' papers were holistically scored by their instructors. Trained raters also scored the papers using an analytical rating system, Guide to the Analysis of Written Discourse (GAWD). The relationship between the ratings derived on GAWD and the holistic grades for each composition was statistically analyzed. Comparison of the two methods of evaluation indicated the holistically derived grade was a more reliable measure of writing ability than the analytic scale. There was a correlation between both methods of evaluation. Both were useful for measuring change in writing ability. (DWH)