I have a simple solution to the education problem, how about this: All GPA's will be equally distributed so that all the kids will have the same grades regardless of their work or effort. This way, everyone is even and everyone gets a clear shot. Sound good? I'm sure some of you are seeing the parallel I'm drawing here. For those that aren't, does this idea sound like a good one?
Sure thing. We'll take grades from the kids who sit in the front of the class and participate and give them to the kids who sit in the rear of the class and sleep at their desks. Sounds like a plan to me.
What makes me sick is that we're pushing these kids out of high school just to meet some type of quota it feels like. When I hear kids from the UK they are mostly well spoken and sound intelligence. When I hear some kids from America speak it's like "Ugh.... Bologna?" I feel that the kids who don't do well should get held back. You basically get two changes to re-do that year and if you fail those two times, well, you just get failed and not allowed back in. The best hope after that is a GED. Oh yeah, I picked two years because by time everything is said and done you'll be 20. Once you're out of your teens you shouldn't be allowed to stay in high school.
The schools are operated like stock yards. They get paid by the head. The more students there are in the classes, the more funds they get from the gov't. [Stop. What am I saying? They ARE government schools!] So, anyway, they push these kids through from one grade to the next to make room for the next bunch. They have little regard for whether these kids receive a proper education. There is one restriction to those who continually fail one year after another. Once they reach 19 years of age, they can no longer participate in the school's athletic programs. But that's for another conversation..
Do you get what I'm paralleling though? It's because commentary on taxing the rich by forcing them to pay more to the poor. It's not obviously a perfect metaphor since not all poor people are poor because of their lack of motivation, but you hear about enough people fighting out of poverty to believe a lot of them have to have just given up.
Yes, I get it. In fact, I thought my post was a pretty fair analogy of your metaphor. Whenever a populace has a government that punishes the productive citizens to enrich the non-productive ones, you've taken a huge step towards Socialism. From there it's just a small step further to Communism.
The function of wealth is not that of a gauge. It has intrinsic worth. You cannot eat grades. ------ In any case, what are the negative ramifications being proposed for what, here? This is all much too abstract for my tastes, and I'm not seeing any negative implications for progressive taxation (if that's what this is about) being revealed by a consideration of the controversies surrounding whether schools should make use of grades (if that's what's being pointed to in the OP). If there's a cat somewhere in this bag, let's see it.
I'm not attempting anything epic or mind-boggling here, EI. All I'm saying with this comparison is that if we're going to make more successful people pay out more of their money simply because they're more successful in an attempt to "even the field" why not make students share their "wealth" when it comes to grades? Everyone is already assuming these days that rich people are lying, cheating bastards and it's wrong. Why don't we assume that all students with high grades are cheaters? It's quite simple really, that's not how we see them. It's more of a joke if anything, this example. It's not meant to be a sound, logical example shown for reasons that include saving the economy and the rich. It's an example that works to me because in my mind, a lot of successful people worked for their keep and should be paid accordingly without being forced to pay more simply because they earned more than some bum who never complete high school and doesn't want to work a janitorial position because it's "below his standards". A lot of people are lazy, a lot of people are driven. Not all successful people are successful through honest means obviously, but then again not all poor people are victims. Plenty of people are poor because they're underachievers, or they didn't take opportunities that were offered to them or simply because they want other people to take care of them. What people are basically saying who support a scaled tax depending on income, is that there is a middle ground and that's where we should be. Poor people would pay nothing, and the rich would pay large amounts because "they don't need it" which is language that translates into "We don't want them to have it" or "a rich lifestyle is wrong".
Progressive taxation is not about punishing people, contrary to suggestion. It is neither a carrot, nor a stick, if we can wrap our mind around laws being something more than means to punish and reward. Rather, the most compelling argument I see for as much, is that given income disparity like that in the United States, those who make relatively little can only ever contribute an almost proportionally non-existent amount to the United States treasury insofar as their income remains at such levels. So why tax them at all?
In 20 years from now they are going to be wondering why there are so many people that cant read and write...
