You think that's bad.
I mark national History exam papers and the only time I'm allowed to punish bad writing is if it's literally so messy I can't read it. Everything else has to be read and can't be deducted marks no matter how nonsensical or poorly written it might be.
And we wonder why these kids can't write a good covering letter or uni application.
Several years ago when I worked at the university of Oklahoma, a therapist asked me to edit a paper she was submitting for publication.
I broke out the old red pen and, this being a college instructor, went nuts correcting things.
Mostly issues with punctuation and passive voice (all too common in academia) but I went through the thing with a pretty critical eye. Made my marks and notes explaining how she could improve it. I was quite proud of myself for the job I did.
She came back to me a bit later, livid.
Failing to understand her outrage and babbling, I pressed. She finally gets out that she's pissed, not because of what I wrote, but that I used red ink.
WTF? Seriously?
I had to ask why.
Red ink, it seems, is stigmatizing. It has connotations of "you fucked up" in it and it hurts the little ones' feelings.
I scratched my head, looking for an answer.
First, I reminded her, when something is incorrect and I am asked to judge that, red ink stands out so the writer can distinguish the editor's marks from their own writing.
Second, I informed her she was all grown up and not a student.
That didn't go over too well.
That was also about the time I dropped out of the education department. There wasn't a day went by in those classes that I didn't have a healthy

over something.