• 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
ooommmmmmmmmm.....


sorry, but no. the human desire to provide for ones self as much as you can with as little effort as you can is juuuuust about universal.

I wasn't making a serious proposal. I was pointing out that there is a bit of double speak on the idea that people need to be ambitious but that they also need to not be prima donnas when it comes to applying for a job.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't making a serious proposal. I was pointing out that there is a bit of double speak on the idea that people need to be ambitious but that they also need to not be prima donnas when it comes to applying for a job.

ambition =/= vanity. one of the best bosses i ever worked for a was a high-demand 5-start restaraunt manager. the man made 6 figures, was worth 7, and started every day........ by cleaning the male restroom. Insisted on doing, it, in fact - and when I became a front manager under him, he made sure I started my day by doing it as well. because the point was that I was just the server of the servers... there to make sure that the restaraunt did everything well, and there was no work that i was too good for.

there is a distinct difference between wanting to better oneself and demanding that the world accept you as already bettered.
 
No it really doesn't. Value is not a condition that is there at all times, it is only there in our minds. If you receive money that you didn't work for you don't think of it has highly, causing whatever value it could of had otherwise to be decreased.

If you don't earn the money work ethic is effected weakening the society as a whole. The truth is doing the same for education wouldn't be all that different in the end. It would weaken the value of the education, just like giving results weakens the value of money and work ethic.

You know when you read a post and your first thought is "Damn, I wish I had thought of that...."

this was it.
 
ambition =/= vanity. one of the best bosses i ever worked for a was a high-demand 5-start restaraunt manager. the man made 6 figures, was worth 7, and started every day........ by cleaning the male restroom. Insisted on doing, it, in fact - and when I became a front manager under him, he made sure I started my day by doing it as well. because the point was that I was just the server of the servers... there to make sure that the restaraunt did everything well, and there was no work that i was too good for.

there is a distinct difference between wanting to better oneself and demanding that the world accept you as already bettered.

Sure, although I'm referring specifically to the situation where a person is kicking back on welfare because they don't want to make a contractual commitment to a job that entails a significantly smaller salary than what they're accustomed to earning on the chance a better opportunity will come up in the future, one that will provide better for them and their dependents.

No it really doesn't. Value is not a condition that is there at all times, it is only there in our minds. If you receive money that you didn't work for you don't think of it has highly, causing whatever value it could of had otherwise to be decreased.

If you don't earn the money work ethic is effected weakening the society as a whole. The truth is doing the same for education wouldn't be all that different in the end. It would weaken the value of the education, just like giving results weakens the value of money and work

That's not a serious risk in American society, as opposed to the risks of not having welfare. Put simply, a civilization can't make significant material advancements without welfare; if poverty spirals out of control for a few years then it will diminish supply and demand (and therefore technological refinement) for a much longer period of time.

I'm not say welfare doesn't have both present and theoretical dangers, but the dilution of America's work ethic isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't making a serious proposal. I was pointing out that there is a bit of double speak on the idea that people need to be ambitious but that they also need to not be prima donnas when it comes to applying for a job.

Your proposal many people consider serious and make seriously. You idea needs a new set of rules that don't exist and never will. The basics are simple people might lose ambition when you give them free things, but they also lose ambition when you don't allow them to profit from their ideas. Ambition is a easy straight forward idea and cared out just as easily with just as much ease, the only way to max it out is if you allow as much freedom to profit as possible. Doing anything else can only be described as dreaming. People need the ability to profit to move, otherwise, no one will move. Just like they need a reason to move and needs is that reason. You can't give them what they need, but you can't also restrict what they can gain doing either will result in the same ends, a weak country with no ambition, no drive, and no desire.

This isn't a game where you can make the rules, the rules are set, have been set, and are going to continue to be set until we no longer exist. You either play by them or you get what we have now and where we are going.
 
Last edited:
Sure, although I'm referring specifically to the situation where a person is kicking back on welfare because they don't want to make a contractual commitment to a job that entails a significantly smaller salary than what they're accustomed to earning on the chance a better opportunity will come up in the future, one that will provide better for them and their dependents.

see now this



directly contradicts this

That's not a serious risk in American society, as opposed to the risks of not having welfare. Put simply, a civilization can't make significant material advancements without welfare; if poverty spirals out of control for a few years then it will diminish supply and demand (and therefore technological refinement) for a much longer period of time.

I'm not say welfare doesn't have both present and theoretical dangers, but the dilution of America's work ethic isn't one of them.

now, your second paragraph is utterly incorrect. 6 out of 10 households in the US recieve more in benefits than they pay in taxes. transfer payments are the largest percentage of our national income since the Great Depression. more people are on food stamps now than at any point in history. we have entire generations raised on the welfare state who immediately go on... the welfare state. entire industries have sprung up around taking advantage of the entitlement mindset present in our society today. if we don't exendlessly expand unemployment to continue to subsidize former middle managers lounging around waiting for another middle management job to open up, for some reason, we are told the world will end. we are rapidly reaching the tipping point where all we will have is a democratic thugocracy - where the majority of takers seize the property of the minority of makers and claim proudly that it is their "right". almost half of our populace doesn't pay income taxes (but does receve tax credits and benefits) and almost half of our populace then turns around and tells pollsters that their taxes are "about right". Rather than paying for the governance they consume, they are the takers, and they think that they are receiving what is about right? not in any danger of weakening our work ethic? we are raising up into the workforce now what is - the social scientists tell us - the most narcissistic generation in our history, fully bought-in members of the society where everyone deserves a trophy just for showing up who expect to recreate their parents lifestyle not by hard work and saving over a long period of time, but within about 5 years. fully 45% of our population is demonstrating the evidence of a weakened work ethic.
 
Last edited:
That's not a serious risk in American society, as opposed to the risks of not having welfare. Put simply, a civilization can't make significant material advancements without welfare; if poverty spirals out of control for a few years then it will diminish supply and demand (and therefore technological refinement) for a much longer period of time.

I'm not say welfare doesn't have both present and theoretical dangers, but the dilution of America's work ethic isn't one of them.

You haven't been paying attention then. People become dependent on ideas like social security, food stamps, and medicare, etc, and will determine their work and plans around it. Certain groups as a whole will do this generation after generation causing serious harms to society.

And welfare is not needed, nor will your scenario ever happen. The market is not run on boom and bust, government is, and just like the market as a whole people will stay pretty assured in the prospect of employment in a market that isn't riddled with intervention and bad policies.
 
Last edited:
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.

Hah - why bother when they can just give the underachieving kids better grades like they already do.

I lost interest in being in the orchestra when I was in the 8th grade because I busted my ass to do well - and won 1st place - and my teacher gave all the kdis 1st place ribbons so no one would feel bad.

See - people don't *take away* from anyone in this type of education-related socialism . . .they just give everyone what the highest achieving kid earns.
 
Last edited:
Hah - why bother when they can just give the underachieving kids better grades like they already do.

underachieving kids get put in programs to a large part so they aren't counted the same. Aka, ADD doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Hah - why bother when they can just give the underachieving kids better grades like they already do.

I lost interest in being in the orchestra when I was in the 8th grade because I busted my ass to do well - and won 1st place - and my teacher gave all the kdis 1st place ribbons so no one would feel bad.

See - people don't *take away* from anyone in this type of education-related socialism . . .they just give everyone what the highest achieving kid earns.

and did that motivate you to really bust your but harder next time around? or did it cause you to decide "aw, screw it"?


and (and this is the 14 trillion dollar question) if you chose the second option, was the result for the orchestra a net positive, or a net negative?
 
underachieving kids get put in programs to a large part so they aren't counted the same. Aka, ADD doesn't exist.

But they are counted the same - they're just treated differently.
 
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.
No, grades are supposed to be an evaluation of knowledge/understanding. This approach would destroy the whole purpose of grading. That's certainly a heck of a lot different than the effect of progressive taxation on the tax/benefit system.
 
It's funny, as taxation is actually closer to teacher time in this instance (in the sense that taxation improves public infrastructure and helps fund programs designed to help those less capable than others).

Perhaps an even better analogy would be having the highest performing students help tutor the lowest performing students.

Both of these analogies I do support. For the same reason I support progressive taxation. It makes sense.
 
see now this



directly contradicts this

Only if I believed it wasn't a manageable problem.



now, your second paragraph is utterly incorrect. 6 out of 10 households in the US recieve more in benefits than they pay in taxes. transfer payments are the largest percentage of our national income since the Great Depression. more people are on food stamps now than at any point in history. we have entire generations raised on the welfare state who immediately go on... the welfare state. entire industries have sprung up around taking advantage of the entitlement mindset present in our society today. if we don't exendlessly expand unemployment to continue to subsidize former middle managers lounging around waiting for another middle management job to open up, for some reason, we are told the world will end. we are rapidly reaching the tipping point where all we will have is a democratic thugocracy - where the majority of takers seize the property of the minority of makers and claim proudly that it is their "right". almost half of our populace doesn't pay income taxes (but does receve tax credits and benefits) and almost half of our populace then turns around and tells pollsters that their taxes are "about right". Rather than paying for the governance they consume, they are the takers, and they think that they are receiving what is about right? not in any danger of weakening our work ethic? we are raising up into the workforce now what is - the social scientists tell us - the most narcissistic generation in our history, fully bought-in members of the society where everyone deserves a trophy just for showing up who expect to recreate their parents lifestyle not by hard work and saving over a long period of time, but within about 5 years. fully 45% of our population is demonstrating the evidence of a weakened work ethic.

I think you are misreading the evidence. People are trying to recreate their parents lifestyles, but the economy doesn't support it. But one point at a time, I guess.

we have entire generations raised on the welfare state who immediately go on... the welfare state.

Sure, but that is limited to economically depressed regions, places where culture hasn't adapted to an evolving global economy (not that the economy would be prepared for them even if they did). Either way, that's a result of a general trend of technological and economic refinement that will only increase as human beings produce larger populations than there is work for.


entire industries have sprung up around taking advantage of the entitlement mindset present in our society today.

Can I get a list of industries with assessments of the danger they pose?

6 out of 10 households in the US recieve more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

Question if that can be plausibly measured, but I'll take it as fact. Either way, increasing dependence on benefits because average income hasn't kept pace with price tags.

where the majority of takers seize the property of the minority of makers and claim proudly that it is their "right". almost half of our populace doesn't pay income taxes (but does receve tax credits and benefits) and almost half of our populace then turns around and tells pollsters that their taxes are "about right".

Because incomes have stagnated. Can't tax what isn't there.

we are raising up into the workforce now what is - the social scientists tell us - the most narcissistic generation in our history, fully bought-in members of the society where everyone deserves a trophy just for showing up who expect to recreate their parents lifestyle not by hard work and saving over a long period of time, but within about 5 years.

I'd have to see more data, although I'm inclined to agree my generation has problems. Either way, disillusionment with the work ethic proceeds from the fact the work ethic doesn't seem to matter in a global economy ruled by the forces of telecommuting and job exportation and the forces of locality, community, and family are irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom