Idea: Students can "share" grades

[JSt0rm]

Oh, look. Another person with the same leaning as throckmorton stuck in the same loop.

Money is not limited. Wealth can be created. You can ADD value to worthless items through manufacturing.

Redistribution is socialism, and hampers competition and discourages innovation, independence, and any number of other positive qualities.

my idea is total cereal and i'm offended you think it wont work.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

There hasn't been a single actual rebuttal, because in the end this isn't something you can argue.

This reminds me of the leftist arguments about health care. Pretty clear that if more is required of the insurance agencies, then they will require more money. 2 + 2 = 4.

In this case, while you won't discourage people from getting 4.0 grades (because some people simply ARE achievers), you certainly discourage the bottom half from pulling themselves up. Remind me again why half the people in this country don't pay taxes again, and why a huge chunk of those people live on government programs LONG TERM.

The argument fails because an A+ is achievable by ANYONE who puts in the time and effort to earn that grade. There are absolutely no outside sources preventing an individual from getting a good grade. This is not the case when it comes to making money.

To become extremely wealthy requires extreme effort and motivation. I know plenty of middle class and lower class individuals with those qualities. So what makes them any different from those at the top?

What gets you into the top 1% is pretty much being in the right place at the right time, or being the first to come up with a profitable idea that no one else has thought of/monetized yet. Lets take Microsoft for an example. A operating system such as Windows could have been created by anybody. If Gates didn't do it, it would only be a matter of time before someone else did. If the original creator of DOS didn't exist, who knows what would have happened to Microsoft. The same theory could be applied to Facebook. If Mark Zuckerberg was never asked by a couple frat boys to create a website like Facebook, he most likely would have never gotten the idea. He probably would have gone on to be successful in something else because of his skill and motivation, but he wouldn't be a billionaire.

Lets not also forget the fact that it almost always takes money to make money. You might have an invention that could change the world, but if you can't afford to develop it or convince investors of its worth so that they can...then you are screwed. Tesla had amazing ideas that never took off due to a lack of funding. I'm sure there are thousands of people with great ideas, but with no means or resources to bring them to reality.

 

[Argo]

The argument fails because an A+ is achievable by ANYONE who puts in the time and effort to earn that grade. There are absolutely no outside sources preventing an individual from getting a good grade. This is not the case when it comes to making money.

To become extremely wealthy requires extreme effort and motivation. I know plenty of middle class and lower class individuals with those qualities. So what makes them any different from those at the top?
.

I don't buy that. Not everybody can get an A+. I've seen plenty of people who spend hours every day studying, but the best they can do is get a B. Similarly, not everybody gets into Harvard or MIT. No matter how much they study.

To get A+ requires talent, hard work and sometimes luck. No different from being wealthy.

 

[KingGheedora]

I take it you are not at 4.0 student then?

 

[nobodyknows]

There haven't been a lot of actual rebuttals, just troll allegations.

Trash in, trash out.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Upon much serious observation, I've noticed a problem.

We have quite a few students with poor grades. Not only will they suffer problems getting a job, meeting graduation requirements, etc., but the school's rankings will be brought down by their bad grades.

My solution? We redistribute grades! It's actually really simple. You set a maximum GPA to 3.0. If you're a 4.0 student, 1.0 gets placed into a "GPA bank." We'll create a group that takes this bank and distributes it among those that need it the most... the students with a 1.0 get it and hopefully improve to a 2.0.

They will graduate, we'll decrease the growing gap between the best performers and lowest performers, and we'll end up with a system where we take care of each other.

I've come to learn that if we do this, we will show that grades are really distributed, not created. If one person does well, it means another is harmed, because it just wouldn't make sense to have a system where everyone can be better off when good grades are earned. Did I mention that the 4.0 student who gets a 3.0 will still be okay? He'll get a good job, live a happy life, etc. Maybe he has to take a cut somewhere along the line, but it's okay, because he can live happy knowing someone else is now being helped.

I haven't been back on AT in a while, but I really hope people will understand where I'm coming from.

Counters? I did hear someone make this analogy - Taking away the 1.0 from 300x 4.0 students (for 4 years) is a total of 1200 GPA points. If the average student earns a 3.0 every year, then this is the equivalent of 400 man years being enslaved. 400 student-years are spent studying to earn a 4.0 and then given away. I've been told that this is like slavery. Surely they must be joking, right?

What the failing student needs is education not cooking the books!

 

[XZeroII]

So if there are 100 people at a school and 99 of them are super smart and get 4.0s and the remaining one gets 1.0, that moron should get a free ride? What is that 1.0 person going to do when they actually get a job and can't read or write despite getting the equivalent of a straight A?

What you proposed is so whacky that I'm sure that most people who read it think you are joking so they don't bother to post a rebuttle.

 

[Ronstang]

So if there are 100 people at a school and 99 of them are super smart and get 4.0s and the remaining one gets 1.0, that moron should get a free ride? What is that 1.0 person going to do when they actually get a job and can't read or write despite getting the equivalent of a straight A?

What you proposed is so whacky that I'm sure that most people who read it think you are joking so they don't bother to post a rebuttle.

Whoooooooooooosh!

 

[JSt0rm]

Whoooooooooooosh!

Their is a shit ton of whoosh in this thread. the original proposition is retarded beyond belief and is some psycho strawman for taxes that doesn't hold any relevance at all. Yet the neocons are wrapping themselves in this question as if its the be all and all of taxation arguements. Fucking lol.

 

[Howard]

You must be one of those students with a 1.0 GPA. Also, you're a fucking communist.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Upon much serious observation, I've noticed a problem.

We have quite a few students with poor grades. Not only will they suffer problems getting a job, meeting graduation requirements, etc., but the school's rankings will be brought down by their bad grades.

My solution? We redistribute grades! It's actually really simple. You set a maximum GPA to 3.0. If you're a 4.0 student, 1.0 gets placed into a "GPA bank." We'll create a group that takes this bank and distributes it among those that need it the most... the students with a 1.0 get it and hopefully improve to a 2.0.

They will graduate, we'll decrease the growing gap between the best performers and lowest performers, and we'll end up with a system where we take care of each other.

I've come to learn that if we do this, we will show that grades are really distributed, not created. If one person does well, it means another is harmed, because it just wouldn't make sense to have a system where everyone can be better off when good grades are earned. Did I mention that the 4.0 student who gets a 3.0 will still be okay? He'll get a good job, live a happy life, etc. Maybe he has to take a cut somewhere along the line, but it's okay, because he can live happy knowing someone else is now being helped.

I haven't been back on AT in a while, but I really hope people will understand where I'm coming from.

Counters? I did hear someone make this analogy - Taking away the 1.0 from 300x 4.0 students (for 4 years) is a total of 1200 GPA points. If the average student earns a 3.0 every year, then this is the equivalent of 400 man years being enslaved. 400 student-years are spent studying to earn a 4.0 and then given away. I've been told that this is like slavery. Surely they must be joking, right?

You can't be serious.

 

[MotionMan]

Updated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss

MotionMan

 

[Infohawk]

Ugh, they didn't need to ever start UC Merced. Cali is having enough trouble funding the older UCs.

 

[JSt0rm]

You are so clever!

Here's my idea. Each school gets a set number of grade points. Every student starts with some points, but the amount each student gets is random. Some will get 1000, some just 1 or 2. Every time you get an F you lose 10 grade points. If you get a D you lose 5. A C makes you lose 3. If you get a B you gain 1. If you get an A you gain 2. But what if you don't have grade points to give when you get a grade below a B? Don't worry, it will be possible to have negative grade points, and your negative GPA will accrue a nominal amount of interest. You can also give points away freely, so if you really wanted to earn grade points you could trade sexual favors for them.

Instead of a random distribution you get more points the more your parents pay in property taxes. This way the rich get something for the taxes the pay :sneaky:

 

[JSt0rm]

How bad is that I post in a necro thread I already posted in? hahah.

 

[MotionMan]

Ugh, they didn't need to ever start UC Merced. Cali is having enough trouble funding the older UCs.

I have lived in California my whole life and I still have to look up where Merced is every time it comes up.

MotionMan

 

[IGBT]

how about sharing garbage?? I'm going to throw some of my garbage over your fence.

 

[MotionMan]

how about sharing garbage?? I'm going to throw some of my garbage over your fence.

I had a neighbor like that.

I think he was a democrat.

j/k

MotionMan

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think this was from the first internet chain mail.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Upon much serious observation, I've noticed a problem.

We have quite a few students with poor grades. Not only will they suffer problems getting a job, meeting graduation requirements, etc., but the school's rankings will be brought down by their bad grades.

My solution? We redistribute grades! It's actually really simple. You set a maximum GPA to 3.0. If you're a 4.0 student, 1.0 gets placed into a "GPA bank." We'll create a group that takes this bank and distributes it among those that need it the most... the students with a 1.0 get it and hopefully improve to a 2.0.

They will graduate, we'll decrease the growing gap between the best performers and lowest performers, and we'll end up with a system where we take care of each other.

I've come to learn that if we do this, we will show that grades are really distributed, not created. If one person does well, it means another is harmed, because it just wouldn't make sense to have a system where everyone can be better off when good grades are earned. Did I mention that the 4.0 student who gets a 3.0 will still be okay? He'll get a good job, live a happy life, etc. Maybe he has to take a cut somewhere along the line, but it's okay, because he can live happy knowing someone else is now being helped.

I haven't been back on AT in a while, but I really hope people will understand where I'm coming from.

Counters? I did hear someone make this analogy - Taking away the 1.0 from 300x 4.0 students (for 4 years) is a total of 1200 GPA points. If the average student earns a 3.0 every year, then this is the equivalent of 400 man years being enslaved. 400 student-years are spent studying to earn a 4.0 and then given away. I've been told that this is like slavery. Surely they must be joking, right?

I think you have quantity and quality mixed up. OH! Why not let the rich failing students hire the poor hard working 4.0's to take their tests just like they do now?

 

[WHAMPOM]

The argument fails because an A+ is achievable by ANYONE who puts in the time and effort to earn that grade. There are absolutely no outside sources preventing an individual from getting a good grade. This is not the case when it comes to making money.

To become extremely wealthy requires extreme effort and motivation. I know plenty of middle class and lower class individuals with those qualities. So what makes them any different from those at the top?

What gets you into the top 1% is pretty much being in the right place at the right time, or being the first to come up with a profitable idea that no one else has thought of/monetized yet. Lets take Microsoft for an example. A operating system such as Windows could have been created by anybody. If Gates didn't do it, it would only be a matter of time before someone else did. If the original creator of DOS didn't exist, who knows what would have happened to Microsoft. The same theory could be applied to Facebook. If Mark Zuckerberg was never asked by a couple frat boys to create a website like Facebook, he most likely would have never gotten the idea. He probably would have gone on to be successful in something else because of his skill and motivation, but he wouldn't be a billionaire.

Lets not also forget the fact that it almost always takes money to make money. You might have an invention that could change the world, but if you can't afford to develop it or convince investors of its worth so that they can...then you are screwed. Tesla had amazing ideas that never took off due to a lack of funding. I'm sure there are thousands of people with great ideas, but with no means or resources to bring them to reality.

You mean if Gates had not taken someone else's operating system and adapted it to work on IBM's machines?

 

[Argo]

The argument fails because an A+ is achievable by ANYONE who puts in the time and effort to earn that grade. There are absolutely no outside sources preventing an individual from getting a good grade. This is not the case when it comes to making money.

I call bull on that statement. There's a lot of people who have no chance of getting A+, no matter how hard they study. I had a class mate in college who probably spent 8+ hours a day studying, and only ended up getting a B average.

Then you're also discounting various people with learning disabilities. Then what about people from "bad families" where they simply don't get a chance to study.

 

[DominionSeraph]

There haven't been a lot of actual rebuttals, just troll allegations.

That's because grades are not a valid analogy for arguing about taxes.

Why not? You earn your grades just like you earn your money.

LOL @ last.

Grades are capped at what you can do for yourself and presume an even environment. An analogy that properly converts grades to money is going to have to really wrangle with the definition of "grades."

Here we go:


A classroom of 100 students. One stumbles upon a series of answer keys for upcoming tests, puts in a little effort to learn the first key, and gets a 4.0. The rest, not having that advantage, get 1.0 (the test was above their level [you can't make a nuke plant with bronze age technology]). The one with the answer keys says, "Hey, I see you're all getting 1.0's. Now, these answer keys are my property, but I'll let you in on them for the right to administer the grades. I'm offering 1.1 GPA's right out of the bag!"
The rest of the students jump on it. They learn the answer keys and earn 4.0's. The entitled answer-key owner collects all those points and hands out each worker his 1.1. The answer-key owner now stops working himself, and still has a GPA of 96.1. Which is the baseline his children will start at.

Conservatives: "But he EARNED that 96.1GPA! Every point."

And this is why we say conservatives are stupid.

 

[DominionSeraph]

For the above, I got bored with translating into the awkwardness of grades and took some liberties with exaggerations and oversimplification. Properly, the found answer keys should only have some answers with capital reinvestment allowing for more answers to be found. Also the levels of management needs to be created, as well as the middle class, earning more by servicing the next level of the economy.
But none of you understand systems, so that would just confuse you.

The central fallacy that needed to be addressed was that the ultra-wealthy have 4.0's; i.e., something achievable on their own. But they do not. They have GPA's in the 100's.
We are not yet at the point where a person can make a billion dollars worth of wealth with products arising from their own hands. Perhaps with nanotechnology we'll have nanite constructors that would cost a few hours of labor that you could then instruct to self-replicate, and then to create a robot army that could labor for you, (with all of this banking on increasing entropy.) At that point you could create massive structures by the products of your own hands. But that is NOT what we have now. The worker class is NOT the product of the wealthy's hands. They did not build these people, they merely exploit their existence through the system of property rights.
Conservatives see these property rights and see that they cannot be tackled head-on and so think that the wealthy own the workers (that they own their output, which is the same thing). But they do not. Just because the system of property rights is useful does not mean it is absolute. You can have a system of property rights without ownership of the workers, because the workers can control taxation. Through the Power of the People the workers own the owner.
Conservatives just aren't bright enough to work on that level. The power of the majority over the minority to counter the power of the minority over the majority (which the majority grant them because it's necessary to achieve their own desires to own property) is just a little over a conservative's head.
Without that perspective the idiot conservative conflates their property rights with his, and so has a conservative's typical stupid knee-jerk reaction.

Also...

/thread.

 

[Infohawk]

Funny seeing people argue that the economy is not fair and is rigged. Most liberals seem to miss the point that the economy is not about fairness. It's just the best resource allocation system we have. Attempts at correcting it and making it "fair" always backfire.

And if anything the economy is a lot more forgiving than school. Get a 1.0 and you get kicked out of school. You will never erase that 1.0. In this economy, you can live on low wages and you can move up. Our poor are fat and most people have TVs. It all comes down to the fact that people are butthurt that others are richer and think it's unfair. We have a reasonable safety net already.