As the editorial in Solidarity 560 said, the "condemnation of 'algorithms' [around the exam grades fiasco] was unfair on algorithms. If algorithms do not produce reasonable results, it is because humans have messed up".
The point is worth a few further words, because hostility to "algorithms" in general can become obscurantist technophobia.
An algorithm is a precisely-defined list of instructions, to do a calculation, or for that matter e.g. to bake a cake (in which case it is called a recipe). No more, no less.
Algorithms can be badly done, as the ones for grades this year were. They can be used to obfuscate and evade responsibility, or to hide prejudices which shaped the algorithm in a fog of technicalities - especially so if they are kept under wraps, as the grades algorithms were.
But it would be bad, not good, for student gradings (for example) to be decided by personal judgements rather than by objective rules. In fact, one of the advantages of algorithms is that they can be made public, and those concerned about the calculation can know in advance what they're dealing with, rather than e.g. just be told by the adjudicator "I felt you were a C rather than A. When you get to be as experienced as me, you can judge such things".
Deciding grades by exams is also an algorithm. In England, you add up the marks, compare them to a list of cut-offs, and allot A, B, C, etc. accordingly. The mark scheme may be poor or ill-defined, but at least there is none of "I felt this 80% was not as good as the other 80%, so it doesn't deserve a B".
There could be other algorithms. For example, in another school system where I've worked, maths papers marks are reported on three distinct dimensions. A high grade depends on getting good scores in one particular dimension ("modelling and problem-solving") as well as the total mark, but a pass doesn't.
For another example, in some systems students are graded on the total of their better results, rather than on the overall total. If they have had a minority of "epic failures", those can be thrown away.
For yet another example, in some systems maths exams are set so that even the most successful students may get 60% or 70%, rather than 90%-plus being required for an A, as in English A-levels (so that just one or two nervous fumbles from exam stress will bar you from top grade).
And still another: in some systems it is a rule that students must be given back their test papers and be able to query and challenge the marking before the marks are finalised.
I think all those make for better algorithms. But the point is that they are explicit and checkable rules and procedures, not just matters of an individual reporting their feelings.
One of the virtues of defining an algorithm is that it brings out in public, for debate, how assessments are made. And no algorithm at all - just impressionistic personal judgement - is definitely bad. It is like allocating jobs only on the impression made in unstructured interviews, a method known to maximise the impact of the interviewers' (maybe inadvertent) biases, and to disadvantage the awkward, the nervous, the atypical.
It is no better than saying that recipes should be banned and all cakes should be baked on the basis of what feels good at the time.