as a side note, it looks like so far 15 out of 15 voters all hate poor black children.I guess I had thought we were passed that as a nation.
It's a tough place to be as a teacher. There are students who need a TON of help and those that can pretty much do anything on their own. I feel like many kids get ignored because the teacher is spending all of her time with either the troublemakers or the ones that are way behind. I go back to the parents every time. If more parents cared about their kids' education we wouldn't have so many problems in school. The breakdown of the family is THE main problem. But how do we fix that?
To detractors, would it not allow for those on the lower end to graduate and gain access to higher paying jobs?
Because that is robbing those kids you are giving those grades too of an education. Like I said, it should be harder to graduate, not easier.
"Progressive" taxation is robbing those men who earned it of the money they deserve.
It should be harder to to take money from people, not easier.
No one else deserves the money people earned, no matter how jealous you are of their accomplishments.
When they haven't earned the privilege, and when those that had demonstrated the abilities are punished by havng to compete with people dishonestly banking on grades they haven't earned?
More than grades, it comes down to different levels of competency. If we did this, we might as well get rid of college, since half of the value of a degree is in the signaling effect.
This is an interesting conclusion.
the plan is designed to give something to poor minority students. 15 of 15 people oppose giving that something to those students. obviously they are against those students.
that's the way the logic works, right? we're balancing the grade bell curve on the backs of the disadvantaged? unfairly tilting grade allocation in the favor of an elite few?
the plan is designed to give something to poor minority students. 15 of 15 people oppose giving that something to those students. obviously they are against those students.
that's the way the logic works, right? we're balancing the grade bell curve on the backs of the disadvantaged? unfairly tilting grade allocation in the favor of an elite few?
If you give them something that doesn't benefit them and could harm them, it does no good.
Of course this will lead to a discussion of the efficacy of the welfare state, but :shrug: I figure thats where you are trying to go anyway
. Nice trap statement.
of course it benefits them. it gets them to the next class. giving someone a welfare payment get's them to the next day. in neither scenario has the individual been made more capable of succeeding at taking care of themself.
it's not my fault the logic fits this scenario as well as others. do you see now how ridiculous it looks from the other side?
I'm not talking about general taxation, which you're mixing with this.
I'm specifically questioning why one institution of "progressiveness" is right and another is wrong, when both are neither egalitarian in design, nor result.
As others have pointed out, when you transfer grades to lower performers, you are depriving them of a true education.
Can not the same thing be said, when you transfer money or services to a person, that are not based on educating them?
It's for their own good. Why raise false expectations? They are only looking to be sports superstars or the mac daddy drug kingpins, anyways. They don't need hypocritical a's to reinforce their low self-esteem.
Ok, so extending the bad analogy in the OP to another bad analogy somehow proves a point? You are willing to go this low?
no, the middle point is what I want to take elsewhere. I have decided that conservatives do not spend enough time focusing on how to actually help the poor. we have worked with the left-wing option of subsidizing poverty for decades now, and I don't see how it has helped much - but i do see where it has done immense harm. Conservatives are full of ideas on how to boost the economy, and that's fine; the poor benefit from that too - but there ought to be a way to reshape and reform government programs to turn them into actual poverty reduction programs.
Good, there is always room in policy discussion on how to further optimize the system. I welcome this sort of discussion, but it would be better to use a logical basis to launch your ideas off of and not this whole progressive grading thing.
Most of us are not really talking about education. We are talking about the fatally flawed comparison of taxes and grades.
this bit is useful mostly as a model, to demonstrate a flaw in logic.
Its generally not a good idea to use flawed logic to attempt to demonstrate other flaws logic though. Its just tends to fail in practice as people will pick it to pieces. This thread is a good example of that happening.
NO! Please explain your logic for asking such a silly question.This isn't a trap thread and it's here to make you think.
Would you support a system of grading, where the higher performing students have part of their grades distributed to lower performing students, in order for their (lower performing students) grades to be brought up to passing?
This should be applied to all levels from Kindergarten-College/University.
Explain your reasoning, behind your answer, please.
on the contrary. i have seen many people make the claim that you repeat; but i have yet to see anyone provide a reasonable principle that describes why we should treat grades as the property of the student but income as the property of society; when both come from similar (if not the same) swirl of complex factors.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?