3 ms·
>the grades were multiplied by a factor ~1.3 The point is that a grade is an ordinal quantity (somewhat). You don't get anything useful from multiplying grades
by pervycreeper 11y ago
>the grades were multiplied by a factor ~1.3
The point is that a grade is an ordinal quantity (somewhat). You don't get anything useful from multiplying grades by any "factor". Anyone in danger of thinking otherwise should not blame the graph. Fast food articles such as "Top 10 secrets of misleading graphs your profs don't want you to know" are probably more culpable in that regard.
- bnegreve 11y ago> The point is that a grade is an ordinal quantity In principle I agree, but grade inflation preserves the order so why should we care about grade inflation if grades are only about order? I think the plot and the rest of the article goes beyond that. Also an histogram is a poor representation choice for ordinal data.
- bryondowd 11y agoGrade inflation doesn't preserve order between the inflated and non-inflated grades, which I think is the point. An inflated low A might actually be lower than an original high B, but gets the shiny A that looks better on paper.