Traditional grades are (still) not mathematically valid
Three reasons why traditional grades and math don't mix
We are hurtling towards the end of the semester here at GVSU. So this week, we’re bringing you three posts by mathematicians about why traditional grades are not mathematically valid. Enjoy!
Traditional grades aren’t objective
A common argument we hear for traditional grades is that they’re all numbers — and numbers are objective, right? A few years ago, I wrote this post about why numbers aren’t objective — especially not when used as grades.
Traditional grades aren’t really numbers
Another argument in favor of traditional grading is that averaging is math, and math doesn’t lie. Two years ago, Robert wrote this detailed post about why, from a mathematical and statistical perspective, that’s nonsense.
Traditional grades aren’t really averagable
Our friend, math educator, and word-inventor1 Spencer Bagley (at Westminster University, and also a guest poster on our blog) recently wrote an even more detailed argument against using weighted averages. He specifically takes on Grade Point Averages, or GPAs. Spencer dives deeply into when averaging and other mathematical operations are valid, and why they simply don’t apply to GPAs (and other types of grades too). Check it out here on Spencer’s blog: GPAs Are Weird by Spencer Bagley.
We’ll be back next week with more posts about alternative grading. See you then!
“Averagable” is just one of his inventions.