Thread: Fair and equal distribution of grades

Students get the idea that if they fall behind it's alright because others will pick up the slack. You're against socialism, right? Well this is basically that...except with grades and things that can alter your future.

This is most assuredly satire from UM.

Si senor a mi tambien

Haven't you done this exact post before UM?

Tell me your life story UM.

I might also add. What a gross exaggeration "get the average of them" is. It isn't even a simplification, it is just amazing exaggeration.

I think it could work. As long as there is the right motivations and incentives behind the students I think it would work out well. However; the foundation of this society we live in needs people, or kids, that are willing to accept shitty lifestyles. If all the kids suddenly had motivation and insight to do well in school, learn as much as they could, and provide themself with a modest living - the structure of our society would crumble.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Haven't you done this exact post before UM?

Tell me your life story UM.

My other thread like this was about nut gathering, and I posted it in 2006. If I started a thread about grade distribution, I must have been really drunk when I did it because I don't remember it. Besides, why not bring it up again anyway? This is an important issue. Do you not have sympathy for the less fortunate or something?

Originally Posted by Sandform

I might also add. What a gross exaggeration "get the average of them" is. It isn't even a simplification, it is just amazing exaggeration.

Exaggeration of what? This is hypothetical, although it is very reminiscient of what full blown socialism is in fact about.

So, what would be the problem with it? That is the big question. You didn't answer it.

To what extent do you support distribution of grades? Maybe 10% of the fat cats' grade points should go to the less fortunate? What exactly are you in favor of in terms of forced grade distribution?

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I think it could work. As long as there is the right motivations and incentives behind the students I think it would work out well. However; the foundation of this society we live in needs people, or kids, that are willing to accept shitty lifestyles. If all the kids suddenly had motivation and insight to do well in school, learn as much as they could, and provide themself with a modest living - the structure of our society would crumble.

Would the straight A students try as hard as they were trying before? Would anybody try as hard or harder?

Nice satire! It's pretty rare that I see written satire that makes sense nowadays.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is an important issue. Do you not have sympathy for the less fortunate or something?

Well, if it's phrased like that...

I have no sympathy for the "less fortunate" whatsoever if it means I have to take a hit to my GPA for the purpose of giving a place in college to some worthless teenager that barely does anything other than draw breath several times a minute. Very few people that would actually deserve something like this are going to get it, and colleges will figure out what's going on and change the application process accordingly.

It's fairly obvious that grade points are not in limited supply. The number of points in the school system depend on the effort of the students. Ten people taking a test worth 100 points could end up putting 1000 more points in, or putting 0 more in.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Would the straight A students try as hard as they were trying before? Would anybody try as hard or harder?

I think it is heavily dependant on where the school is, the teachers, the parents of the children. And also it depends if the incentives change with the curriculum. If I were to take a half-educated guess in a situation where incentives don't change and this curriculum was put in play, I think the average would fall. I only say this because in our current situation there is little motivation for children to learn. Or try to learn. There is way too many distractions for kids where they can ever so easily just forget about school and lose all motivation to expand their knowledge.
The media bashing them on the head everyday with thoughts of sex, alcohol, partying, friends, and just having a good time. Video games, mindless magazine articles, TV, movies, celebrities, music etc. It's all too easy to just say fuck it I'll settle for some mediocre robot assembly line job and take a dick up my ass for the rest of my life.

Originally Posted by Licity

Nice satire! It's pretty rare that I see written satire that makes sense nowadays.

What? I am totally serious about this. (Thanks.)

Originally Posted by Licity

Well, if it's phrased like that...

I have no sympathy for the "less fortunate" whatsoever if it means I have to take a hit to my GPA for the purpose of giving a place in college to some worthless teenager that barely does anything other than draw breath several times a minute. Very few people that would actually deserve something like this are going to get it, and colleges will figure out what's going on and change the application process accordingly.

It's fairly obvious that grade points are not in limited supply. The number of points in the school system depend on the effort of the students. Ten people taking a test worth 100 points could end up putting 1000 more points in, or putting 0 more in.

Effort? Damn, then we need to hit the fat cats even harder. I would hate to have to expect effort from the less fortunate. If colleges do what you are talking about, they need to be sued for their mean spiritedness against (otherwise) F students.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Effort? Damn, then we need to hit the fat cats even harder. I would hate to have to expect effort from the less fortunate. If colleges do what you are talking about, they need to be sued for their mean spiritedness against (otherwise) F students.

(I actually laughed out loud at this post.)

It'l never work! You couldn't sue, all the lawyers are the A students that went to those colleges!

Originally Posted by Licity

(I actually laughed out loud at this post.)

It'l never work! You couldn't sue, all the lawyers are the A students that went to those colleges!

I just got a huge kick out of that point. Because it's so true! The lawyers are also lobbyists who work for sinister corporations that scheme so maliciously to make students have to work for what they get. It is like the second coming of Hitler.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Exaggeration of what? This is hypothetical, although it is very reminiscient of what full blown socialism is in fact about.

So, what would be the problem with it? That is the big question. You didn't answer it.

To what extent do you support distribution of grades? Maybe 10% of the fat cats' grade points should go to the less fortunate? What exactly are you in favor of in terms of forced grade distribution?

No UM, the exaggeration I'm talking about is the reason why you made this thread, you and others love to draw a nonexistent parallel between the taxes under Obama's plan and forcing everyone into equal status. If that wasn't why you made the thread, then never mind.

A true parallel would not be of "grade points" but of "time spent helping the students." The students with high grades probably already have parents who spend time making sure their children, the students, are successful, and students who have low grade points probably have parents who do not spend time helping them. It only makes sense that more time should be given to people who need it since the amount of the teacher's time taken from the kids who already have such high grades wouldn't really affect them that much but it would affect the students who actually need time greatly.

Now here is why your parallel isn't spot on. Grade points aren't comparable to money. Being given grade points wont help you make more points. Being given a greater amount of attention will help them make more grade points. On the other hand, money in this case actually does help a person make more money. If you want proof just look at everyone who has ever had their way paid through college and come out making more money now than they would without it. Or people who can afford quality school supplies allowing them the ability to actually gain an education. Or people who can afford clothes to wear when going to an interview. I would have zero problem with a student having more time spent on them helping them to learn even if it took time away from the other students (or myself) who don't actually need the teacher's time that badly anyway. Of course if that .0013 of a point really mattered to me so much that other human beings' lives became insignificant maybe I would be a bitter bastard who wants to spite people for not being born into a nurturing home.

If you're arguing against sharing grade points, you've made a fine point, but if you are trying to draw parallels to spending money trying to help people who have no one else to help them, you aren't making a valid argument. Especially since the goal of the tax isn't to put everyone into an "averaged" capacity.

I'm still waiting on a short story of your life UM.

I see no problem with people who have lived in luxury all their lives because their mommy and daddy paid their way through life paying a little extra to help pay the way of people who don't have a rich mommy and daddy. Almost all of the people I've met who have had to crawl through trying financial times in their lives to the top because of the lack of mommy and daddy paying their way have no problem with the idea of lending a helping hand to people who actually need it because they recognize how beneficial it would have been for them if only someone had tried to help boost them up.

I'm not really supporting Obama, but I am supporting the concept that those who have been helped in life should want to help others. I also believe any sane and caring person who has had to fight their way to the top would recognize how much help the slight sacrifice being asked of them at the moment would have been for them if someone had done so for them when they were struggling in the past and be willing to make that sacrifice.

Originally Posted by Sandform

No UM, the exaggeration I'm talking about is the reason why you made this thread, you and others love to draw a nonexistent parallel between the taxes under Obama's plan and forcing everyone into equal status. If that wasn't why you made the thread, then never mind.

The parallel is with bull blown socialism. Obama's economic philosophy is not all the way there, but it is pretty far in that direction. I made this thread to get into the idea of socialism, period. In discussing that, we can get into what levels of it are okay and which ones are not. That is why I asked you to what extent you support distribution (at all) of grades.

Originally Posted by Sandform

A true parallel would not be of "grade points" but of "time spent helping the students." The students with high grades probably already have parents who spend time making sure their children, the students, are successful, and students who have low grade points probably have parents who do not spend time helping them. It only makes sense that more time should be given to people who need it since the amount of the teacher's time taken from the kids who already have such high grades wouldn't really affect them that much but it would affect the students who actually need time greatly.

That is not a "true" parallel. It is just another parallel. What it is lacking is a correspence to the fact that grades are what the A students earn and really want. They generally want less time with the teachers because they don't feel like they need so much of it. But grades on the other hand...

Originally Posted by Sandform

Now here is why your parallel isn't spot on. Grade points aren't comparable to money. Being given grade points wont help you make more points. Being given a greater amount of attention will help them make more grade points. On the other hand, money in this case actually does help a person make more money. If you want proof just look at everyone who has ever had their way paid through college and come out making more money now than they would without it. Or people who can afford quality school supplies allowing them the ability to actually gain an education. Or people who can afford clothes to wear when going to an interview. I would have zero problem with a student having more time spent on them helping them to learn even if it took time away from the other students (or myself) who don't actually need the teacher's time that badly anyway. Of course if that .0013 of a point really mattered to me so much that other human beings' lives became insignificant maybe I would be a bitter bastard who wants to spite people for not being born into a nurturing home.

Like I said earlier, good grades lead to good colleges which lead to good graduate schools which lead to good money.

Originally Posted by Sandform

If you're arguing against sharing grade points, you've made a fine point, but if you are trying to draw parallels to spending money trying to help people who have no one else to help them, you aren't making a valid argument. Especially since the goal of the tax isn't to put everyone into an "averaged" capacity.

I see one counterargument in that. If you have more, I would like to know them. Again, I am illustrating the illogic of pure socialism, and I am asking what distance in the direction of it is okay.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I'm still waiting on a short story of your life UM.

It's confidential. Why do you want it? If you want to make the point that I slept in a golden crib, you are out of luck. My family was below the poverty line until I was ten years old. Now my parents are rich because they worked so hard for it. It was the idea of success that drove them. A socialist system would have gotten nothing out of them. Capitalism did the trick. A lot of countries need to really look into how well it works. People work for rewards. It is psychology 101.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I see no problem with people who have lived in luxury all their lives because their mommy and daddy paid their way through life paying a little extra to help pay the way of people who don't have a rich mommy and daddy. Almost all of the people I've met who have had to crawl through trying financial times in their lives to the top because of the lack of mommy and daddy paying their way have no problem with the idea of lending a helping hand to people who actually need it because they recognize how beneficial it would have been for them if only someone had tried to help boost them up.

If I stop working, will you start sending me money?

Originally Posted by Sandform

I'm not really supporting Obama, but I am supporting the concept that those who have been helped in life should want to help others. I also believe any sane and caring person who has had to fight their way to the top would recognize how much help the slight sacrifice being asked of them at the moment would have been for them if someone had done so for them when they were struggling in the past and be willing to make that sacrifice.

If the rich want to give charity, that is fine, but they should not be forced into it. It is an unfair and ineffective system.

Now... The big question... To what extent do you support forced grade distribution? How much of it is okay? Please answer it this time.

Well, for one thing getting bad grades doesn't necessarily imply that you can't afford to cure an illness you have. However, with bad income that could become an issue.

Originally Posted by Sandform

A true parallel would not be of "grade points" but of "time spent helping the students." The students with high grades probably already have parents who spend time making sure their children, the students, are successful, and students who have low grade points probably have parents who do not spend time helping them. It only makes sense that more time should be given to people who need it since the amount of the teacher's time taken from the kids who already have such high grades wouldn't really affect them that much but it would affect the students who actually need time greatly.

Now here is why your parallel isn't spot on. Grade points aren't comparable to money. Being given grade points wont help you make more points. Being given a greater amount of attention will help them make more grade points. On the other hand, money in this case actually does help a person make more money. If you want proof just look at everyone who has ever had their way paid through college and come out making more money now than they would without it. Or people who can afford quality school supplies allowing them the ability to actually gain an education. Or people who can afford clothes to wear when going to an interview. I would have zero problem with a student having more time spent on them helping them to learn even if it took time away from the other students (or myself) who don't actually need the teacher's time that badly anyway. Of course if that .0013 of a point really mattered to me so much that other human beings' lives became insignificant maybe I would be a bitter bastard who wants to spite people for not being born into a nurturing home.

The problem I see with taking time away from those students who are excelling or at least making the grade is that you/they (whatever ambiguous pronoun you choose) are not challenging them or allowing them to reach their full potential. Instead, you're saying to them, "You've met the requirements. You don't have to be any better." Schools are cutting days out of the year so that students are only able (if lucky) to be taught the rudimentary basics of reading, writing, math, history, and so forth. There's no time for a (trained) teacher to go in depth or really drive the information into the student's head so that they don't forget. The way I see it, we are setting kids up with a "learn and forget" style. Learn enough to pass the test, then you don't need it any more. That's part of the reason that students in other countries know our history better than we do. They take the time to study it.

Sure, give time to students who are struggling, but not if that means taking time away from those who should be moving on to bigger things. In addition, when today's generation grows up under the "learn and forget" way of doing things, by the time their kids are in school, they won't remember the difference between the Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs. Instead, there will be a generation of adults telling their kids "Ask the Internet."

I worked for my grades. I went to college just a couple of years too early and now all of this assistance Obama is promising for kids who want to go to college comes along. Is his assistance going to help me with my college loans? No. That's not "fair" to me. (...but I'm not bitter.)

Grades are something that people have to work for; the notion of people being "greedy" by excelling is insane and laughable.

The problem is is threefold:

Not everyone has access to the same opportunities
Some people never have the chance to be considered. Arguably the easiest problem to solve.

Not everyone has the ability to take advantage of these opportunities
In other words, not everyone has the same capacity for learning. Not much that can be done here with current technology. And even if this could be changed, ethical concerns would have to be dealt with first.

Some people can use the opportunities but require more work/time/resources to be able to do so
In other words, some people have the same capacity for learning, but learn at a slower rate. Solving this is harder, since providing the money and resources would be hard to predict. Not to mention analysing someone's capacity for learning is not easy; it's hard to tell if they've "maxed out" or not.

Ideally everyone would have the same opportunities and be able to get access to the resources they need to take advantage of those, i.e. the only variable would be how willing a person is to put in the work they need.

In practice, achieving a system would be difficult if not impossible, but taking grades from people who've earned it and giving it to those that don't not a solution.

How about we just come up with an alternative school system that gives the kids who are getting bad grades now the kind of schooling that would help them succeed? Perhaps some trade skill training for kids who don't do well in academics?

Although I know you were joking, I personally think the goal should be to give every kid good grades. I just think our school system should be changed so that it is easier to teach every child what they want to learn and have the potential to excel at.

I think this could apply to the obvious parallel of socialism and the economy as well.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

This is most assuredly satire from UM.

I think you won the door prize, only problem is theirs a big difference between changing someones grades and making sure everyone has enough food to feed themselves and their families.

I'm sorry UM you are comparing apples and oranges, I wouldn't expect those with more talent to be recognized, but the problems with this country are that the people with the money are the ones making the money and that is just how it is.

The rich get richer while the poor get poorer all the while the middle class is stuck fighting Democrat vs Republican wars to keep us all blind to the fattening of their pockets.

The practical effect of "equal distribution of grades" is that grades no longer exist. You'll have to devise a non-quantitative method for feedback on performance, or do without that feedback entirely.

Now, if you're talking about "averaging" grades on a school-by-school basis, that brings the institutions into competition rather than the individuals, and the social pressures of working on a team will regulate performance.

I say we get rid of grades all together. We should find ways to give people jobs based on skills and intelligence not degrees. School should be about learning, not degrees and grades. We need to set up a system which promotes a love of learning.

I don't think anything will be done to fix the American school system anytime soon. If I have kids I'm homeschooling them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We all know of the misfortunes of kids who make bad grades in school, which causes them to not get into college, which causes them to have bad economic futures. That leads to drug addiction and starvation. Meanwhile, academic fat cats are making straight A's and getting into Ivy League schools and excellent grad schools. It is not fair. There are plenty of grade points to go around for everybody. So, I have a proposal. Instead of rewarding greed, let's force the greedy to share. Instead of each person being given the grade that he or she actually made in a term, we should take all of the grades in an entire school, get the average of them, and give everybody that grade. That is fair, and it forces equality. We can make the academic fat cats stop hogging all of the good grade points, and we can give the extra grade points to those who are less fortunate.

What do you think the result would be?

Sounds like the godless reds have had their way with you!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If I stop working, will you start sending me money?


If the rich want to give charity, that is fine, but they should not be forced into it. It is an unfair and ineffective system.

Now... The big question... To what extent do you support forced grade distribution? How much of it is okay? Please answer it this time.

I'm not in favor of grade distribution at all and, like I told you, I don't think that is a fair comparison at all to lending a helping hand in comparison to money. Like noted earlier by another member, things like health care have no parallel to grade points.

I'm not in favor of equalizing people, I'm in favor of helping people.

If you had hit some rough times in your life UM, yes, I would help you. But it takes a lot of people to help a lot of other people.

I don't mean to wave your story away UM, but if you only experienced poverty until the age of ten then you might as well have been born in a golden crib.

Originally Posted by Ameythist

The problem I see with taking time away from those students who are excelling or at least making the grade is that you/they (whatever ambiguous pronoun you choose) are not challenging them or allowing them to reach their full potential. Instead, you're saying to them, "You've met the requirements. You don't have to be any better." Schools are cutting days out of the year so that students are only able (if lucky) to be taught the rudimentary basics of reading, writing, math, history, and so forth. There's no time for a (trained) teacher to go in depth or really drive the information into the student's head so that they don't forget. The way I see it, we are setting kids up with a "learn and forget" style. Learn enough to pass the test, then you don't need it any more. That's part of the reason that students in other countries know our history better than we do. They take the time to study it.

Sure, give time to students who are struggling, but not if that means taking time away from those who should be moving on to bigger things. In addition, when today's generation grows up under the "learn and forget" way of doing things, by the time their kids are in school, they won't remember the difference between the Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs. Instead, there will be a generation of adults telling their kids "Ask the Internet."

I worked for my grades. I went to college just a couple of years too early and now all of this assistance Obama is promising for kids who want to go to college comes along. Is his assistance going to help me with my college loans? No. That's not "fair" to me. (...but I'm not bitter.)

They have advanced classes where the time wouldn't have to be split off for students excelling that would gain from something. In my comparison the amount of time the teachers spent on the limited students would have been extremely beneficial for the limited students and so minuscule in comparison for the excelling students that if the excelling student's gpa changed at all it would come as a surprise. But for students who really want to excel and are going to be worth spending time on there are advanced classes.

Wouldn't it have been nice, though, if you had had someone help you? I'm not saying you're super greedy, and I do see where you're coming from. You feel like if someone else gets help you should have received help as well.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I think you won the door prize, only problem is theirs a big difference between changing someones grades and making sure everyone has enough food to feed themselves and their families.

Did you see what I said about the relationship between grades and economic futures?

Even if you see that as a difference, there are parallels. What problems do you think would exist in a system of equal grade distribution?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I'm sorry UM you are comparing apples and oranges, I wouldn't expect those with more talent to be recognized, but the problems with this country are that the people with the money are the ones making the money and that is just how it is.

It is not possible for you to become one of them?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The practical effect of "equal distribution of grades" is that grades no longer exist. You'll have to devise a non-quantitative method for feedback on performance, or do without that feedback entirely.

Grades would still exist. They would just be really, really low. The former achievers would think, "I won't get much of a reward for effort now, so why try?" The former underachievers would think, "Everybody else is responsible for my grade, so why try?" That right there is the failure of socialism.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Now, if you're talking about "averaging" grades on a school-by-school basis, that brings the institutions into competition rather than the individuals, and the social pressures of working on a team will regulate performance.

Pretty much everybody would be a playing bench warmer in the "competition".

Originally Posted by Sandform

I'm not in favor of grade distribution at all and, like I told you, I don't think that is a fair comparison at all to lending a helping hand in comparison to money. Like noted earlier by another member, things like health care have no parallel to grade points.

I disagree, and I just illustrated some of the parallel. What problems do you think would exist in a system of grade distribution? Why are you against any level of it?

Originally Posted by Sandform

I'm not in favor of equalizing people, I'm in favor of helping people.

Why are you against helping people with grade points when there are plenty of grade points to spare?

Originally Posted by Sandform

If you had hit some rough times in your life UM, yes, I would help you. But it takes a lot of people to help a lot of other people.

Sometimes it only takes one. If you have money and I don't, why am I not entitled to half of your money?

Originally Posted by Sandform

I don't mean to wave your story away UM, but if you only experienced poverty until the age of ten then you might as well have been born in a golden crib.

Why? Also, how is it relevant?

Originally Posted by Sandform

Wouldn't it have been nice, though, if you had had someone help you? I'm not saying you're super greedy, and I do see where you're coming from. You feel like if someone else gets help you should have received help as well.

If we had someone helping us, my parents would still be in the same position.

It jumps to my eyes, your views on socialism UM.

What you call full-blown socialism is nothing here in Europe, it seems that fear of the communism has really taken deep roots in the minds of most Americans.

Hehe, have you stepped foot in Europe UM? I can just imagine you, screaming: "Arghh, communist, socialist.. Can't take it!" before you faint..

You have not seen the benifits of socialism, I have. They are by far worth considering.

Capitalism did the trick for you parents? No it was hard work and hope for the future, I know that you say that it wouldn't happen with socialism.

Socialism is not communism, did you know that? Why do you think that we only can choose capitalism or socialism?

They can both be in the same time, and I think that is the answer. Not only far right or left.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

It jumps to my eyes, your views on socialism UM.

What you call full-blown socialism is nothing here in Europe, it seems that fear of the communism has really taken deep roots in the minds of most Americans.

Hehe, have you stepped foot in Europe UM? I can just imagine you, screaming: "Arghh, communist, socialist.. Can't take it!" before you faint..

You have not seen the benifits of socialism, I have. They are by far worth considering.

Capitalism did the trick for you parents? No it was hard work and hope for the future, I know that you say that it wouldn't happen with socialism.

Socialism is not communism, did you know that? Why do you think that we only can choose capitalism or socialism?

They can both be in the same time, and I think that is the answer. Not only far right or left.

Why is the United States so much more economically (and therefore technologically, etc.) successful than Europe?

I don't hate socialists and communists personally. I just think they have very dangerous ideas about how things should work. I also think you can see from what I have said so far that my disagreements with socialism go way beyond cultured dislike for the Soviet Union. I have done a lot to get into the depths of this issue.

What do you think of grade distribution?

Folks, please don't get into this conversation if you are not going to answer that question. The title of this thread is "Fair and equal distribution of grades", not "Socialism". I want to focus on what would go wrong in a system of equal distribution of grades. Then we can take those answers and discuss why such things would or would not happen in a socialist system. But please don't dive in and immediately start talking about socialism. We have plenty of those threads. Thank you.