Degrees in English and other humanities fields have fallen sharply over the past decade. In Virginia, for example, English degrees dropped by roughly 39 percent between 2011-12 and 2021-22, and nationally humanities bachelor's degrees fell by about 30 percent between 2005 and 2020. Students and families increasingly weigh earnings, and median pay for humanities graduates trails that of engineering majors by a wide margin. Departments that teach writing find themselves defending their courses to deans and boards.

The strongest defense is evidence. Many English departments teach essential skills in writing, analysis, and argument that employers say they want, but they rarely document what students actually learn. A dean who sees only enrollment numbers and grade distributions has little sense of what a writing course accomplishes. Rubric-based assessment data can fill that gap, showing what students can do at the start of a course, what they can do at the end, and how those results compare across sections.

Program review is the formal moment when departments are asked to justify their work, but evidence collected only for review tends to be thin. A modest, continuous assessment practice produces much stronger material, and it also improves teaching. The effort pays off in both accountability and instruction, since the same rubric scores that satisfy a review committee also show instructors which skills students are still missing.

Define a small set of program-level writing outcomes

Begin by agreeing on three to five outcomes that every writing course should support, such as constructing a well-supported argument, using evidence responsibly, revising effectively, and writing for different audiences. Write them in plain language and map each to the rubric criteria used in courses. A shared set of outcomes allows data from different sections and instructors to be combined. It also helps students see a coherent purpose across courses.

• Agree on three to five program-level writing outcomes mapped to rubric criteria
• Sample sixty to eighty anonymized essays across course levels each year
• Score drafts and final versions on the same rubric to show growth
• Link outcomes to employer priorities such as communication and critical thinking
• Report agreement rates and actions taken, not only scores

Collect a sample of student work across the program

Each year, gather a random sample of anonymized student essays from first-year, intermediate, and capstone courses. Score them with a common rubric aligned to the outcomes, using a small group of faculty trained through a calibration session. Compare scores across levels to see whether students are developing as intended. Even a sample of sixty to eighty papers can yield meaningful information.

Include evidence of growth within courses, such as drafts and revisions scored on the same rubric. Show how much students improve between first and final drafts. This is powerful evidence of teaching effectiveness. It also demonstrates that students are learning in the course, not just arriving with skills, a distinction that matters when a dean asks whether the course itself adds value or simply attracts strong writers.

Connect writing outcomes to what employers and students value

Link the outcomes to published employer priorities. In a recent survey of hiring leaders, communication and critical thinking were rated among the most important entry-level skills, each scoring above four on a five-point scale. Point out that writing courses are where students practice both. Include testimonials from alumni and employers where possible, especially from graduates who can describe a specific report, proposal, or memo they wrote because of a skill practiced in the course.

Offer students clear information about the skills they gain and how to describe them. A course page that lists rubric-based outcomes and sample assignments is more persuasive than a general promise of improved communication. Encourage students to keep a portfolio of their best work. Evidence helps graduates in job searches as well, since a student who can show a scored sample and name the criteria it met sounds far more credible in an interview.

Use tools wisely and report honestly

Where permitted, a rubric-based tool can help score a larger sample of essays against program criteria, with faculty reviewing a portion to confirm accuracy and reporting agreement rates. This can reduce the workload of annual assessment so that it is sustainable. Disclose how scores were produced, and keep faculty responsible for interpretation. Honest reporting strengthens credibility with administrators, and faculty who explain the limits of their method are generally trusted more than those who present clean numbers without context.

Present findings in a concise report with clear charts, a few sample papers, and a list of actions the department will take. If scores reveal weaknesses, say so and describe the response. Deans respond better to departments that show they learn from data than to those that claim perfection. Over several years, a record of improvement is a strong argument for continued support.