Spectator Magazine, WJ’s literary and arts magazine, introduced new submission and review systems this year aimed at promoting standardization and making feedback more constructive.
In previous years, students who submitted art and writing weren’t given a rubric or set of guidelines, and pieces were reviewed by just the art or writing staff, respectively. However, concerns about bias and standardization spurred the implementation of a new system. Students are now provided with a list of criteria that the staff considers when they submit, ranging from whether the “subject matter is original OR treatment of subject matter is fresh,” for poetry to if the “piece has depth and shows an understanding of foreground, middle ground and background” for art.
Senior Marcy Harper, Spectator’s co-editor-in-chief, worked with fellow co-editor-in-chief Madeline Babcock and Spectator’s adviser Alexia Remy to implement the changes. Harper had been one of the staff members most involved in advocating for them, having witnessed firsthand the problems with the previous review system.
“It was different on an individual basis, so if your piece got read by a specific person you were more likely to get in than another person,” Harper said. “That made me very frustrated.”
Now, the entirety of Spectator reviews submissions, which are kept anonymous. Following the review, the critiques are consolidated onto a single document, which is then printed and put into an envelope along with a sheet notifying the writer whether or not their piece has been accepted. Every few weeks, the accumulated envelopes are placed in English teachers’ mailboxes for them to hand out.
“We wanted to try to incorporate a better way of communicating with the students who submitted, giving constructive criticism so it was more of a learning experience and not just a blind yes or no,” Remy said.
In the past, students who had their pieces rejected weren’t given anything beyond that fact, which strongly discouraged resubmission. The critiques are now more oriented toward recommending improvements that increase pieces’ chances of acceptance.
“Before it was kind of a one-and-done situation, and now with feedback, you are very much encouraged to keep resubmitting,” Harper said.
As a result of the new review system, however, the heads of art and writing have seen a significantly increased workload. Senior Mara Johnson, Spectator’s head of writing, said that as the year progresses, she expects consolidating and distributing critiques will take up “more and more” of her time.
“We have everyone write down their critiques and scores for each piece, and then I take all the rubrics, average out all the scores, and compile a list of critiques,” Johnson said. “Then I write that in a letter, print that out, and give it to Mrs. Remy.”
Still, Harper, Remy and Johnson said they were happy with the reforms and their impacts thus far.
“It gives us a very unbiased approach to the writing,” Johnson said. “We’re not judging based on if we know a person that’s submitting, we’re basing it on the quality of the writing itself. I think it’s a lot more fair to the students.”
