So it has nothing to do with the content at all, just how many words are in sentences, and how many syllables are in those words. A twelve year old with a penchant for run-on sentences (and a thesaurus) could invent a “33rd-grade” sentence if they put their mind to it.
It’s actually dumber than if they had an AI grade it for readability.
That’s like saying the ability to have theoretical shoe sizes for giants makes practical shoe sizes useless. In reality, the hypothetical text you’re describing that breaks the scale isn’t something we need to worry about.
And yet, I’ve seen it touted as a useful, if approximate, metric since I was in secondary school last century (1990s).
Sometimes the “dumbest” stuff gets used just because it’s a translation to the “standard” number line. I don’t know which, if either, was the cause and which was the effect, but it kind of thinking strongly correlates with a “number go up” / infinite growth measure of success.
So it has nothing to do with the content at all, just how many words are in sentences, and how many syllables are in those words. A twelve year old with a penchant for run-on sentences (and a thesaurus) could invent a “33rd-grade” sentence if they put their mind to it.
It’s actually dumber than if they had an AI grade it for readability.
That’s like saying the ability to have theoretical shoe sizes for giants makes practical shoe sizes useless. In reality, the hypothetical text you’re describing that breaks the scale isn’t something we need to worry about.
And yet, I’ve seen it touted as a useful, if approximate, metric since I was in secondary school last century (1990s).
Sometimes the “dumbest” stuff gets used just because it’s a translation to the “standard” number line. I don’t know which, if either, was the cause and which was the effect, but it kind of thinking strongly correlates with a “number go up” / infinite growth measure of success.