Apeil 28, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



663 



let us represent graphically the marking by 

 them of those students who according to the 

 rule ought to be marked M and who are just 

 one half of the total number, having twenty- 

 five per cent, above them and twenty-five be- 

 low. Each of the seventy-two rectangles of 

 the diagram of Fig. 1 represents by its hori- 

 zontal extent these students. If every teacher 



Fig. 1 



had actually given all of these students the 

 grade of M, these rectangles would lie exactly 

 one over the other, forming the straight col- 

 umn indicated by the dotted lines. The 

 greater the fraction of these M-students who 

 have received from their teacher S instead of 

 M, the more the particular rectangle reaches 

 beyond the left border of the column. The 



most extreme case of this high grading is 

 found above at A', B'. Below where the 

 rectangles reach beyond the right border of 

 the column, we find those teachers represented 

 who have given a fraction of their M-students 

 the grade of I. The lack of uniformity may 

 be measured by the ratio of the total area 

 lying outside the column to that of the col- 

 umn itself. This ratio is about ten to a hun- 

 dred, so that we may say that one tenth of the 

 grades given are unjust in being either one 

 grade too high or one grade too low. 



The diagram which has just been explained 

 represents the grading from the time of the 

 introduction of the new system to the end of 

 the first semester of the last session, that is, 

 the grading of three semesters and two sum- 

 mer sessions. The last semester is not in- 

 cluded because of a change made in the 

 method of compiling the statistics. The dia- 

 gram, further, represents only seventy-two 

 teachers. Those who did not report, during 

 the time mentioned, at least ninety grades, 

 have been omitted. It would be unfair to 

 include teachers who had so few students be- 

 cause in the case of these teachers the varia- 

 tions must be regarded as accidental. That 

 the deviation from the standard amounts 

 nevertheless to one tenth illustrates the great 

 resistance with which the introduction of a 

 new system of grading, the requirement of a 

 new way of thinking, meets in a mind influ- 

 enced by traditions of a different past. There 

 seem to be still not a few teachers who report 

 their E's, S's, etc., as if these grades repre- 

 sented well-defined or definable percentages of 

 a maximum ideal accomplishment of " 100 " 

 instead of rank. There seem to be others who 

 only with difficulty get accustomed to the idea 

 that we have now four passing grades, whereas 

 formerly we had only three, and who on this 

 account hesitate to assign the fourth grade, 

 the I. However, that these deficiencies in the 

 actual working of the system will speedily dis- 

 appear seems to follow from the great progress 

 already made, which becomes obvious when we 

 compare the lack of uniformity under the 

 present system of grading with that prevailing 

 under the previous system. 



