¶ … against the Zero' was published by Douglas Reeves in 2004, claiming that the inclusion of the zero on a 100-point scale was not only discouraging to students, but also mathematically inaccurate. Reeves found issue with the use of the zero to correspond to grade F. In the 100-point scale. He posited that the interval between the letter and numerical grades ought to be constant for a grading scale to be mathematically accurate. To this end, the four-point scale is rational and accurate since the one-point numerical increment between the numbers 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0, is proportionate to the increment between each letter grade on the corresponding A, B, C, D, and F. grade basis. On the other hand, the 100-point is scale is inaccurate given that the numerical interval is ten points between grades A, B, C, and D, with break points at 90, 80, 70, and 60, but is sixty...

And F, if grade F. is taken as to correspond to 0. Reeves, therefore, holds that either the four-point scale be used in the assessment of academic performance, or students who fail to hand in their assignments be awarded 50% (grade D's 60 points minus .
I totally disagree with Reeves' argument because it is misleading, and is more of an inflated hoopla. Taking the example of a class covering ten crucial ideas; how many ideas would a student have to cover so as to receive class credit? Logically, a student who receives credit ought to have mastered not less than six of these. However, if Reeves' logic is brought into play, it would call for the award of a passing grade to any student who has mastered at least two of the ten crucial ideas.

Reeves' solution is in this case nothing but a guise for artificial grade…