Rigorous Grading.Faster Feedback.Better Learning.
Give students detailed feedback on their work without the grading marathon. Save hours or days with ready-to-use results that you can review and edit.
1. A 5.0 kg block slides down a 30° incline with μk = 0.20. Draw a free body diagram and find the acceleration.
Along incline:
mg sin θ − μkmg cos θ = ma
a = g(sin30 − 0.2 cos30)
= 9.8(0.5 − 0.173)
a = 3.2 m/s²
2. A 0.50 kg ball is thrown upward at 15 m/s. Find the maximum height using energy conservation. Then sketch a velocity-time graph for the complete motion.
KE → PE:
½mv² = mgh
h = v²/2g = (15)²/(2 × 9.8)
= 225/19.6
h = 11.5 m
v decreases as ball rises, passes through
zero at max height, then increases
downward (negative) on the way back.
3. Two masses m1 = 3.0 kg and m2 = 5.0 kg are connected by a string over a frictionless pulley. Find the acceleration and tension.
m₁: T − m₁g = m₁a
m₂: m₂g − T = m₂a
Add: a = (m₂−m₁)g/(m₁+m₂)
= (2)(9.8)/8
a = 2.45 m/s²
T = m₁(g+a) = 3(12.25)
T = 36.75 N
Student Exam
EDITABLEFeedback:
Question 1 — Inclined Plane (30 pts): 30/30
Free body diagram is complete with all three forces correctly identified and labeled. The decomposition into components was handled cleanly. Excellent work.
Question 2 — Energy & Kinematics (35 pts): 28/35
Energy conservation is correct and h = 11.5 m is right. However, the v-t graph is drawn as a curve when it should be a straight line. Under constant gravitational acceleration, v(t) = v₀ − gt is linear. Review Section 3.4 on uniformly accelerated motion to see why constant acceleration always produces a linear v-t graph (−7 pts).
Question 3 — Atwood Machine (35 pts): 35/35
Clear diagram. Newton's 2nd law applied correctly to each mass, then combined to eliminate T. Both a and T correct.
Grady's Feedback
Grade every subject
From python notebooks to handwritten exams, Grady can evaluate all student assignments and all course subjects. Here are a few examples:
MKT 350 – Midterm Exam: Market Analysis and Strategy
EditableFeedback:
Grade an entire class in an hour or less
Upload hundreds of exams and in about an hour each exam will have detailed, question-by-question feedback. The time you saved grading from scratch can be redirected to more student interaction or mentoring. Students get feedback while the material is still fresh — not weeks later.
300 exams
Your voice, your standards — every time
Grady drafts; you decide. Review every grade, edit every comment, approve everything before it reaches students. And because every submission goes through the same process, every student gets the same depth and rigor — whether they’re first in the stack or last.
EDITABLEFeedback:
Question 1 — Integration by Substitution (25 pts): 25/25
You correctly applied u-substitution with u = x² + 1 and showed clear work throughout. Your final answer was simplified properly.
Question 2 — Integration by Parts (25 pts): 18/25
You correctly identified u and dv, but there was a sign error during the evaluation step. The integral of e^x was handled well, but the negative sign was dropped when…
Gain an aerial view of class comprehension
Class-level analytics surface which concepts need revisiting and which students need support. Faculty teach more effectively; students benefit from courses that adapt to actual learning gaps and get more targeted practice.
Grade Distribution
Performance
84
Average /100
85
Median /100
23
Students
Class Performance Summary
The class performed well overall on the Calculus II midterm, with a mean score of 84/100 and a median of 85/100. Students demonstrated strong competence in integration by substitution (Q1) and partial fraction decomposition (Q3). The primary area of difficulty was integration by parts (Q2), where 12 of 23 students made sign errors during evaluation — suggesting a procedural gap rather than a conceptual one. Graph labeling (Q4) was another common weakness, with 8 students omitting axis labels entirely.
Students
Outstanding work, nearly flawless execution
Exceptional performance, minor formatting issue
Near-perfect work, minor notation inconsistency
Excellent work throughout, minor notation issues
Excellent across all sections, minor graph labeling issue
Excellent method selection, minor sign error
Strong across the board, minor graph scale issue
Strong partial fractions, minor sign slip
Good overall, small algebraic slip in partial fractions
Solid understanding, small arithmetic error in Q2
Good partial fractions, minor sign tracking issue
Solid partial fractions work, needs axis labels
Good setup on all problems, arithmetic errors
Solid fundamentals, arithmetic errors in evaluation
Solid fundamentals, forgot constant of integration
Correct methods chosen, lost points on graph labels
Strong substitution, sign error in integration by parts
Correct approach on Q1/Q3, lost points on Q2/Q4
Correct substitution, missing axis labels and +C
Good substitution, struggles with partial fractions
Substitution correct, struggles with parts/graphing
Struggles with integration by parts, needs graphing practice
Needs review of integration by parts and partial fractions
Common Errors
Students correctly identify the method but frequently drop the negative sign during evaluation.
Correct general shape drawn but axis labels and scale markings consistently omitted.
Decomposition setup correct, but errors when solving the system for coefficients.
Correct antiderivatives reached but +C constant omitted.
Grounded in 20+ years of higher education
Created by 2 faculty, Grady was custom built for the rigor of university grading.
Rubric Construction
A powerful grader that can fluidly adapt to any subject and faculty direction. Our proprietary rubric engine interprets faculty instructions and builds rigorous, adaptable rubrics for any course or assessment format.
A powerful grader that can fluidly adapt to any subject and faculty direction. Our proprietary rubric engine interprets faculty instructions and builds rigorous, adaptable rubrics for any course or assessment format.
Built privacy-first for faculty and students
The university faculty who built Grady are experts in cybersecurity, data privacy, cryptology, and information security. They care deeply about Privacy and Ethical use of AI and Grady is a reflection of their commitment.
FERPA
WCAG 2.2 AA
HECVAT
SOC 2
GDPR
Always safe and secure from your first trial run with Grady to your 1000th graded assignment.
What faculty are saying
“Its grading is broadly similar to human grading, and its ability to generate a marking rubric was excellent—in some cases more effective than a human’s. I think the core of what it is doing is amazing.”
Alexander Paulin
UC Berkeley
Associate Teaching Professor of Mathematics
“Overall the grading quality is impressive. The feedback that is provided is clear, helpful and should promote student learning.”
Nakul Verma
Columbia University
Senior Teaching Faculty of Computer Science
“I am very impressed. I believe Grady is more accurate than myself or any of my undergrad TAs and the amount of feedback given is more than I or my TAs would be reasonably able to provide.”
Tim Carpenter
The Ohio State University
Senior Lecturer, Computer Science and Engineering