The Problems of AKC Judging - Part I

Let me preface this by making very clear that I hold AKC judges in high regard. Many judges are very conscientious and work very hard to fairly and accurately do their jobs. But there are problems inherent in the system and it is these I want to address. All of the issues I plan to discuss are linked to the fundamental problem of subjectivity. In fact, subjectivity is so much a part of the AKC conformation world view that many judges appear to have embraced it as acceptable practice.

At the core, the goal of an AKC judge at any event is simple: Find the animal that most closely matches the breed standard as described. This sounds straightforward, but is actually a monumental task. The published standard for the English Springer Spaniel, for example, is about a four-page, 2000-word document, and is made up primarily of beautifully worded but intensely subjective descriptions like this:

"The eyes are of medium size and oval in shape, set rather well-apart and fairly deep in their sockets."

It is left to the judge to determine exactly what constitutes "medium size," "well-apart," and "fairly deep in their sockets." On the other hand, some descriptions in the standards are pretty unequivocal:

"The muzzle is approximately the same length as the skull and one half the width of the skull. Viewed in profile, the toplines of the skull and muzzle lie in approximately parallel planes."

Without examples this would likely be an impossible task. Fortunately, AKC judges are trained by example. Animals with both conforming and non-conforming characteristics are brought in and the judge trainees shown the differences. (Unfortunately, this is often done by volunteers who have vested interests themselves or are victims of their own subjective biases, but this is a topic for another posting....) Overall, this is pretty much a suboptimal solution to a suboptimal situation, but is the current state of things and is something most of us could probably live with were it not for one thing: Judges augment the standards with their own personal preferences.

I"ll never forget the first time I ever heard a judge explain why he gave one bitch (who by the way showed several significant and obvious faults against the breed standard) a win over another more closely conforming animal: "I prefer a smaller bitch," he said. I was incredulous. Both of these animals were clearly within the stated height limits for the breed, and the larger one was a much closer match to the standard. I would think it should be clear to everyone that a standards-based system becomes useless the minute those judging against the standard can make personal preferences a deciding factor over and above the standard itself.

Since that first encounter, I have heard many such remarks from judges: "I just really enjoy the chocolates more than the other colors." "I know that markings aren't part of the standard, but I have a really hard time putting up an animal with markings that aren't symmetrical. They just aren't 'typey.'" And on it goes. I don't think it is unreasonable to consider this "personalization of standards" quite unprofessional and frankly inexcusable. Standards exist so that breeders have an agreed-upon set of benchmarks against which to evaluate their litters and plan their breeding programs. There is plenty of room within most breed standards for breeder specialization, but there is no room for personal bias on the part of judges.

So this is my challenge to all AKC judges: I know you have a difficult job and I deeply appreciate what you do. But get yourselves out of the equation and judge by the standard. To do otherwise is to risk awarding superior status to inferior animals to satisfy personal preference. If you want to be widely recognized as professionals, govern yourselves professionally and stop rewriting standards to suit yourselves.

But that's just the first problem. Next time I'll address the judge / handler relationship.