• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Progressive Grading in School

Would you support Progressive Grading?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
I'm not so sure about that.
It seems inconsistent to me that one form is "cheating, stealing, etc" while another is fair.

Surely there are students who cheat in school, in fact at times there are a great many who "cheat" through, privileges of parents, income, actual cheating, etc.

Why is one excusable and the other not?

Public education is egalitarian. The best advantage one can obtain is sitting closer to the teacher, and the school is kept up through a yearly allotment of tax dollars drawn from the entire community, so no child or family is decisively more responsible for the existence of the school than any other child or family.

Economies are not egalitarian. For example, the military makes up only a fraction of the market, but the existence of the institution provides order and security that gives the population the confidence needed to take part in other realms of the market. That's why veterans enjoy a list of tax payer funded benefits civilians don't.

Other forms of welfare have their own justifications, justifications that would be hard to make in a classroom environment, which again, is principally egalitarian.
 
If it were a trap I'd be making it a bit harder to decipher the meaning.
I am asking this question as a sincere attempt to make people think about what they support.

It's a trap because there is no real connection between the two things you are trying to make analogous. It's like comparing apples and airplanes.
 
Public education is egalitarian. The best advantage one can obtain is sitting closer to the teacher, and the school is kept up through a yearly allotment of tax dollars drawn from the entire community, so no child or family is decisively more responsible for the existence of the school than any other child or family.

Economies are not egalitarian. For example, the military makes up only a fraction of the market, but the existence of the institution provides order and security that gives the population the confidence needed to take part in other realms of the market. That's why veterans enjoy a list of tax payer funded benefits civilians don't.

Other forms of welfare have their own justifications, justifications that would be hard to make in a classroom environment, which again, is principally egalitarian.

Public education is not egalitarian, not at all.

This is most persistent through the individual district funding.
 
Public education is not egalitarian, not at all.

This is most persistent through the individual district funding.

Important qualification is principally egalitarian. There's no perfect expression of egalitarianism, anymore than there's a perfect expression of capitalism.

That doesn't detract from my point anyway. The point is the classroom is ordered in a way that none of the actors can make a legitimate claim on somebody else's good grades. History doesn't necessarily order the economy that way.
 
Last edited:
Important qualification is principally egalitarian. There's no perfect expression of egalitarianism, anymore than there's a perfect expression of capitalism.

That doesn't detract from my point anyway. The point is the classroom is ordered in a way that none of the actors can make a legitimate claim on somebody else's good grades. History doesn't necessarily order the economy that way.

Why shouldn't they be able to?
If someone else had a better upbringing, better investment towards their education, than someone else who did not, why shouldn't it be redistributed to balance out the difference?

And to add, what makes it ok to do this with income?
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't they be able to?
If someone else had a better upbringing, better investment towards their education, than someone else who did not, why shouldn't it be redistributed to balance out the difference?

And to add, what makes it ok to do this with income?

You know you just proved CC right about this being a trap thread.
 
Why shouldn't they be able to?
If someone else had a better upbringing, better investment towards their education, than someone else who did not, why shouldn't it be redistributed to balance out the difference?

And to add, what makes it ok to do this with income?

There are pre-conditions to economic activity that the population as a whole participates in. This can be summed up as, 'maintaining a community'. Without a community, there is no economy. So people heavily invested in the economy also have a vested interest in the community, which sometimes requires welfare to maintain.

Before the guy who can copyrighted bendy straws can capitalize on his invention, he needs all sorts of economic-political-cultural arrangements to exist. If he had invented bendy straws in the Soviet Union, where those arrangements did not develop through history, then that would be a challenge.
 
Last edited:
You know you just proved CC right about this being a trap thread.

If you didn't notice, I was pretty implicit in my expression of what the thread was about.
It is a comparison.
I said I was playing devil's advocate and if you didn't read through the purposefully easy to see through question of Progressive Grading, then I'm sorry I can't help you.

If it were meant to be a trap, I would be interested in trapping people.
What I'm more interested in, is the inconsistency and to challenge what people believe.

A trap is meant to deceive, a trick, I had/have no intention.
 
Not really.

Both are measurements earned through work, yet one is acceptable to redistribute.

They are not comparable, because if the grades are not a reflection of the education they received, then they are worthless, while money, no matter how it is earned, still has value.
 
It's was a really bad comparison when Beck made it, it is still a really bad comparison. Education. Taxes. Different. Not the same. You tried harder than the other thread just like this one made at coincidentally the same time, but it still fails due to the problem of trying to compare dissimilar things.
 
There are pre-conditions to economic activity that the population as a whole participates in. This can be summed up as, 'maintaining a community'. Without a community, there is no economy. So people heavily invested in the economy also have a vested interest in the community, which sometimes requires welfare to maintain.

Before the guy who can copyrighted bendy straws can capitalize on his invention, he needs all sorts of economic-political-cultural arrangements to exist. If he had invented bendy straws in the Soviet Union, where those arrangements did not develop through history, then that would be a challenge.

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 was a really bad comparison when Beck made it, it is still a really bad comparison. Education. Taxes. Different. Not the same. You tried harder than the other thread just like this one made at coincidentally the same time, but it still fails due to the problem of trying to compare dissimilar things.

How are they dissimilar?
It's a comparison between taxing results, high grades and high incomes.

Both are heavily dependent on work involved, to achieve the higher result.
What I think stands out, is that most people believe that their grades are reflective of their work, while they think most high incomes are not.

It's a biased and inconsistent approach.

Edit: I did my thread first, the other was coat tailing me.
 
Last edited:
If grades are worthless, then why are you against them being transferred?

I said grades are worthless if they are not reflective of the education the student received, big difference.
 
How are they dissimilar?
It's a comparison between taxing results, high grades and high incomes.

Both are heavily dependent on work involved, to achieve the higher result.
What I think stands out, is that most people believe that their grades are reflective of their work, while they think most high incomes are not.

It's a biased and inconsistent approach.

Edit: I did my thread first, the other was coat tailing me.

You are honestly asking how income tax is different from grades?
 
The effective value of money is the same thing.
You'll notice that people who depend heavily on "free" money value it in the same way.

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that money still has value, no matter how it is earned. You can spend earned money the same way as you can free money. The same can not be said for grades.
 
I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that money still has value, no matter how it is earned. You can spend earned money the same way as you can free money. The same can not be said for grades.

I dunno, if I earned a degree by not doing a lot of work towards my grades but still passing, I'd say that was pretty valuable.

Especially if I got a decent job out of it.
 
No I'm asking why it is wrong to tax high grades, why is it right to tax high incomes.

Because they are not the same thing. They are treated differently(because they are), you receive them based on different criteria, measure entirely different things. They are in fact nothing alike.
 
Because they are not the same thing. They are treated differently(because they are), you receive them based on different criteria, measure entirely different things. They are in fact nothing alike.

Then why does the work you do in school, heavily reflect on the work you get in life?
Would it be correct to say that education does not lead to a successful job and higher incomes, in general?

In fact I think Your Star hit the nail on the head, earlier in the discussion, that simply giving people stuff does not teach them anything.
 
I dunno, if I earned a degree by not doing a lot of work towards my grades but still passing, I'd say that was pretty valuable.

Especially if I got a decent job out of it.

No it's not valuable, because you do not have the education to match that degree, and even if you do get a job with it, you will likely not be able to do your job, because you lack the education.
 
Then why does the work you do in school, heavily reflect on the work you get in life?
Would it be correct to say that education does not lead to a successful job and higher incomes, in general?

In fact I think Your Star hit the nail on the head, earlier in the discussion, that simply giving people stuff does not teach them anything.

What does this have to do with what I said? You are making the most tenuous of connections to try and show that two dissimilar things are the same. They are not, they are dissimilar. This is why you should not steal talking points from Beck.
 
Back
Top Bottom