This article presents the author's response to Arend Flick. The author states that Flick is correct that the issue of rubrics is broader than interrater reliability, though it is the assessment practitioner's primary armament against what the author has heard dubbed "refried bean counting" (insinuating that assessment statistics are not just bean counting but rather an effort to count the beans in a mashed-up mess of bean paste). Although Flick says rubrics are as valuable in the humanities as they are anywhere else when used judiciously, RiCharde contends that in practice, rubrics are not always used judiciously. Often, rubrics are a means of circumventing standardized or in-house multiple-choice tests, which are sometimes borrowed from another institution and taken at face value. While Flick is right on target in stating that rubrics do not automatically translate into homogenized teaching, they do often lock faculty into a common, overly simplified view of the construct they are charged with measuring. Here, RiCharde asserts that the typical rubric is inadequate for the task of measuring critical thinking.