4 ms·
Of course there are a million-and-one possible problems, but the upside is also massive, especially if an automated grader is used to supplement human graders.
by SatvikBeri 14y ago
Of course there are a million-and-one possible problems, but the upside is also massive, especially if an automated grader is used to supplement human graders. Some examples:
-A student can iterate and improve their essays on their own using an auto-grader. They can get it up to a decent level just through iteration before having to get a human involved.
-Human graders are highly subjective
-Human graders tend to be strongly affected by factors such as "number of hours since they last ate"
-Different humans have different levels of harshness, a machine could help calibrate these
-Outside, say, the top 10% of colleges, the vast majority of human graders suck. Especially for standardized tests, they typically get paid near minimum wage and the qualifications are along the lines of "have a degree." While automated graders will probably never be as good as the best graders, they don't have to be.
So overall, I'm pretty excited. Even a half-baked solution has a lot of potential value.
- notahacker 14y agoA student can iterate and improve their essays on their own using an auto-grader. They can get it up to a decent level just through iteration before having to get a human involved. If awarding people degrees based on essays whose form is dictated by trial and error rather than actual comprehension and interpretation is an upside...
- SatvikBeri 14y agoI also hold the opinion that it's much easier to learn programming if you can get feedback from the compiler in a few seconds or minutes as opposed to waiting two weeks between each compile.
- solistice 14y agoYou don't wait for 2 weeks to get your compiler errors? How do you handle the subjectivity of stack traces then? Dude, that's madness. But seriously, short feedback loops facilitate learning, and if this shortens the feedback loop, then I'm exited about it.