Final answer:
Erin's assertion touches on the philosophy behind grading systems, contrasting the merit-based approach with a collective model. Factors such as attendance, ability, and work ethic contribute to student performance, which can be analyzed using statistical measures like percentiles and means.
Step-by-step explanation:
Erin's statement is related to a subject outside the realm of specific academic curriculum; it involves the broader concept of grading systems which can be affected by student performance, educator discretion, and social principles such as equity and fairness. When assessing student performance and corresponding grades, there are generally accepted factors contributing to these outcomes such as attendance, innate ability, and work ethic.
On the contrary, lack of success is commonly tied to the absence or lack of these traits. The traditional grading system, with its roots in a competitive and meritocratic philosophy, is likened to the principles of capitalism, where individual effort is rewarded.
The scenario provided presents a stark contrast with the shift to a collective grading model resembling a communist approach. In this model, the class mean score determines the grade awarded to every student, thereby promoting the notion of collective success over individual achievement. This grading model echoes sentiments like "we're all in this together" and addresses concerns about the potential demoralization that low grades can cause.
Taking this further, if we discuss probability in the context of exams, a student guessing on a true-false quiz without studying has a measurable chance of success depending on the number of questions and required passing percentage. Various statistical measures like percentiles, z-scores, and means can then be applied to evaluate student performances more comprehensively.