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 μ_k = 0.20. Draw a free body diagram and find the acceleration.

Along incline:

mg sin θ − μ_kmg 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

EDITABLE

Grade:

Feedback:

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

From python notebooks to handwritten exams, Grady can evaluate all student assignments and all course subjects. Here are a few examples:

student-submission.pdf

MKT 350 – Midterm Exam: Market Analysis and Strategy

MKT 350 Midterm Exam page with handwritten answers covering SWOT analysis for GreenTech Innovations, customer segment targeting, and penetration vs price-skimming pricing strategy

Editable

Grade:88

Feedback:

**Part I – Multiple Choice (30 points)**
26/30 – Most answers were correct, with minor errors on questions related to Porter’s Five Forces and pricing strategy.
Total Q1: 26/30

**Part II – Short Answer (40 points)**
33/40 – Generally well-handled. The response on Porter’s generic strategies contained a notable inaccuracy by substituting “First mover” for “Focus,” which impacted the score.
Total Q2: 33/40

**Q20. SWOT (10 points)**
10/10 – Your SWOT analysis for GreenTech Innovations is comprehensive, with at least two relevant items in each category—Strengths (cost/energy value, patent protection), Weaknesses (brand recognition, limited funds), Opportunities (market growth, unserved market share), and Threats (incumbent power, future tech imitation). The analysis aligns well with case facts.
Total Q3: 10/10

**Q21. Target Segment (10 points)**
10/10 – You recommended targeting cost-conscious homeowners and provided a strong justification based on GreenTech’s 40% cost reduction, the segment’s large market share, lower brand loyalty, and alignment with limited VC funding. The rationale also considers alternative marketing channels, demonstrating a thoughtful application of case details.
Total Q4: 10/10

**Q22. Pricing Strategy (10 points)**
9/10 – Your recommendation for penetration pricing is clear and supported by case facts, such as attracting cost-conscious homeowners, gaining market share, and leveraging the patent protection period. You also note the potential for organic marketing benefits. However, a brief comparison with price skimming, including pros/cons or margin trade-offs, would add depth to the analysis.
Total Q5: 9/10

**Overall Comment:**
Your submission reflects a strong understanding of marketing strategy concepts and their practical application, particularly in the case analysis section where you effectively tied theoretical frameworks to the GreenTech scenario. In the multiple-choice section, most answers were correct, with minor errors on questions related to Porter’s Five Forces and pricing strategy. The short answer section was generally well-handled, though the response on Porter’s generic strategies contained a notable inaccuracy by substituting “First mover” for “Focus,” which impacted the score. The case analysis was a highlight, with clear and logical recommendations supported by case details, though a bit more depth in discussing pricing alternatives could enhance the response. Overall, this is a commendable effort with minor areas for improvement in precision and elaboration on certain theoretical components.

Total Score for Part I: 26/30
Total Score for Part II: 33/40
Total Score for Part III: 29/30
Overall Score: 26 + 33 + 29 = 88/100

**Overall Score: 26+33+10+10+9 = 88/100**

See how Grady works

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.

Faculty: Save hours or days
Students: Feedback while it matters

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.

Faculty: Full editorial control
Students: Consistent, thorough feedback

EDITABLE

Grade:

Feedback:

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.

Faculty: Actionable class analytics
Students: More targeted instruction

Grade Distribution

Performance

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

Common Errors

Integration by parts — sign errors12

Students correctly identify the method but frequently drop the negative sign during evaluation.

Missing graph axis labels8

Correct general shape drawn but axis labels and scale markings consistently omitted.

Partial fractions — coefficient errors6

Decomposition setup correct, but errors when solving the system for coefficients.

Forgetting constant of integration5

Correct antiderivatives reached but +C constant omitted.

See all features

Created by faculty invested in excellence, Grady was built for the rigor of higher ed learning.

Taught at: MIT · Tsinghua · Columbia · NYU · Toronto · Rutgers · UIC

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.

The university faculty who built Grady are experts in data privacy, cybersecurity, cryptology, and information security. They care deeply about Privacy and Ethical use of AI and Grady is a reflection of their commitment.

FERPA

Compliant

WCAG 2.2 AA

Compliant

HECVAT 4

Available

GDPR

Compliant

See our Privacy and Ethical AI Pledge

Always safe and secure from your first trial run with Grady to your 1000th graded assignment.

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

Ready to try Grady yourself?

Join Early Access

Rigorous Grading.Richer Feedback.Better Learning.

Grade every subject

MKT 350 – Midterm Exam: Market Analysis and Strategy

Grade an entire class in an hour or less

Your voice, your standards — every time

Gain an aerial view of class comprehension

Grade Distribution

Performance

Class Performance Summary

Students

Common Errors

An AI grader grounded in 20+ years of university teaching

Rubric Construction

Built privacy-first for faculty and students

What faculty are saying

Ready to try Grady yourself?

Frequently Asked Questions