• 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%

  • No

    Votes: 21 100.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
cpwill said:
i agree that the swirl of complex factors that go into GPA and Income are difficult enough to pull apart that you can't select a single one and describe it as a controlling facet.

what you are missing i think is that despite the fact that both income and GPA are the result of the interaction of these indescribably complex factors, for some reason when we discuss grades we do so from the assumption than they are the product of the student and belong to the student to direct as he sees fit, whereas many seem to discuss income from the assumption that they are the product of society and belong to society to direct as they see fit.
Click to expand...

Then you make the assumption that I see them this way. I do not. I see both as a product of complex factors from both the individual and society.
 
as if said:
I'm curious, is there reasoning behind your line of thinking?

Looks like a trap, smells like a trap, but I imagine if it was you would have been craftier about it.

What is the line of thought and reason to comparing it to taxes?

Oh great now you got me going on the whole fricken tax mess lets to that too in another thread.

Grading is jacked up .... face it.

When I was in HS you had to have a GPA of 4.0 to be an honor student. Maybe you are on to something but the take from is off. Now anyone it seems can be an honor student... all in the name of the PC police I guess.

Dont let Jimmy's feellings be hurt becuase he isnt as smart as ... whatever.

Blame it on whatever, the fact America as a whole has lost it's advantage on education is the not as smart or not as inclined to learn have no need for motivation. Muddle through and get a pass. It is a show up and get an automatic pass mentality with the added perk of honor status for those who try hard enough or are intelligent enough they dont even have to put much effort into it.
Click to expand...

If I wanted to make a trap thread, with the intent on wiggling my finger in peoples faces like a jerk, I would be much more craftier than that.
I'm not a jerk though and I guess I falsely believed that the majority of people would of seen the implicit comparison, I was trying to make.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Nooooo.

It's about taxing grades in a similar fashion that income is taxed.
Click to expand...


As if the whole school thing isnt taxing enough. ~sigh~

If you care about it that is.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And I agree, some don't need a formal education to achieve high results, but simplification is necessary to discuss generalized things.

I never have a problem understanding, that there are always exceptions.
Click to expand...

The issue is that there are no hard and fast rules. Grades do not equate a better life. More income does. Again, this is why the comparison fails. The outcomes do not match.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Then you make the assumption that I see them this way. I do not. I see both as a product of complex factors from both the individual and society.
Click to expand...

which is why i utilized the phrases "we" and "many" as opposed to "you".
 
as if said:
As if the whole school thing isnt taxing enough. ~sigh~

If you care about it that is.
Click to expand...

Oh I do and I hated school.
I even had a brush with redistributional education policy with one teacher once.

I want to make education fun, interesting, "tailored to the person" kind of experience.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The issue is that there are no hard and fast rules. Grades do not equate a better life. More income does. Again, this is why the comparison fails. The outcomes do not match.
Click to expand...

Whoa, more income does not necessarily lead to a better life, conversely lower income does not necessarily mean that your life will suck.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If I wanted to make a trap thread, with the intent on wiggling my finger in peoples faces like a jerk, I would be much more craftier than that.
I'm not a jerk though and I guess I falsely believed that the majority of people would of seen the implicit comparison, I was trying to make.
Click to expand...

OK back to my thoughts on tax.

Have you done the math on what it would take as a percentage for a flat tax? A main component for many who have contempt for any part of the taxing tier.

Ever talk to any in HS who were on the honor roll? Most arent as pleased with it as you might think, it is no easy task.

Enter the honor roll status by chance and you find you are expected to maintain it for an entire year and so on.
 
Last edited:
as if said:
OK back to my thoughts on tax.

Have you done the math on what it would take as a percentage for a flat tax? A main component for many who have contempt for any part of the taxing tier?
Click to expand...

If I were to design a tax, it would likely be progressive, although less stratified as it is now.
I do not believe any person should have to pay more than 10% in taxes.
That's ridiculous.

as if said:
Ever talk to any in HS who were on the honor roll? Most arent as pleased with it as you might think, it is no easy task.

Enter the honor roll status by chance and you find you are expected to maintain it for an entire year and so on.
Click to expand...

Yea being in honors classes typically involved more work.
That's not fun, helpful, educational or anything, just more crap to keep you busy.
 
Kandahar said:
Except this isn't a redistributionist policy in the same sense that progressive taxation is. The reason that we redistribute money from the rich to the poor is the general assumption that more money makes people better off (which is largely true, at least to a certain point). The same argument cannot be applied to grades. Better grades do not, by themselves, make people better off. They only indirectly make people better off, by leading to more lucrative jobs and more money. And even here, the variable isn't so much the grades themselves, but the education. If you have the grades without the education, it means nothing.



Internet-deprived? Uhh I don't think that there's hardly anyone in the United States in 2011 who is internet-deprived, except for dottering old luddites and maybe a few hillbillies in the Appalachian Mountains. For the vast majority of students who do have the internet at home or at school, moving to an online-centric education system will be greatly beneficial because it will enable them to work at their own pace and for teachers to focus their efforts on students who are stuck.
Click to expand...

no i tend to think there is some pretty solid parallels to be drawn. that's not really the thrust of my argument here, but the effect is the same. if you simply give someone money without increasing the value of their labor, then all you have done is give them a fish and fed them for a day. if you simply give someone grades without increasing the value of their knowledge then all you have done is given them a grade and allowed them one year's progress in schooling. in both scenarios, your aid hasn't really helped the person in the long term, but rather utilized a short term paper-over-the-problem solution to dull any attempts to seek out a (more painful) long term solution.
 
as if said:
What on earth is that!?!
Click to expand...

Remember I said "brush."

It was this one time in history class, (note that I'm fiercely competitive when it comes to quizzing) and I got the answer to a competitive quiz right, but the teacher publicly said I was wrong.

Another guy received credit and when I confronted the teacher after class about it, she said I was "technically right."
What the hell does that mean? :lol:

as if said:
Sounds good, and is most likely close to flawless.
Click to expand...

It can be very expensive, so not flawless. :/
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That would indicate that I believe that the two are comparable. I do not. One cannot create a metric that would give an accurate metric for two issues that have no comparison.
Click to expand...

so no, you can't utilize logic to demonstrate how one falls on one side of dividing line and one falls on the other.
 
Kandahar said:
Internet-deprived? Uhh I don't think that there's hardly anyone in the United States in 2011 who is internet-deprived, except for dottering old luddites and maybe a few hillbillies in the Appalachian Mountains. For the vast majority of students who do have the internet at home or at school, moving to an online-centric education system will be greatly beneficial because it will enable them to work at their own pace and for teachers to focus their efforts on students who are stuck.
Click to expand...

To someone living in the country with no definitive use for the net, I doubt without it they care. Farmer, country folk, mine worker ....

From what I see with the standardization of the net in society and in just about every venue, it has created it's own need to becoming a virtual necessity. hmmm I saw an expected need by many venues over a decade back, the news, banks and so on.

Necessity is the mother of invention... which creates the need. Need is defined as something required for ones survival. Air, water, food and so on. If you will not die you do not implicitly have a need for it. Though it is argued anything that will negatively impact when missing is a need. regardless

The routine of going to school is a primer for one to learn the habit of leaving the house daily to go to work. Good habits are good to form.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Remember I said "brush."

It was this one time in history class, (note that I'm fiercely competitive when it comes to quizzing) and I got the answer to a competitive quiz right, but the teacher publicly said I was wrong.

Another guy received credit and when I confronted the teacher after class about it, she said I was "technically right."
What the hell does that mean? :lol:
Click to expand...

ah... i wonder if she realized what she was actually doing by exposing her more intelligent students to the downfalls of a progressive redistribution schema....
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Remember I said "brush."

It was this one time in history class, (note that I'm fiercely competitive when it comes to quizzing) and I got the answer to a competitive quiz right, but the teacher publicly said I was wrong.

Another guy received credit and when I confronted the teacher after class about it, she said I was "technically right."
What the hell does that mean? :lol:
Click to expand...

You got the brush off with a smile/ok you were right, bye.

The teachers I have had! ~sigh~



Harry Guerrilla said:
It can be very expensive, so not flawless. :/
Click to expand...

Too many chefs spoil the soop.
 
cpwill said:
no i tend to think there is some pretty solid parallels to be drawn. that's not really the thrust of my argument here, but the effect is the same. if you simply give someone money without increasing the value of their labor, then all you have done is give them a fish and fed them for a day. if you simply give someone grades without increasing the value of their knowledge then all you have done is given them a grade and allowed them one year's progress in schooling. in both scenarios, your aid hasn't really helped the person in the long term, but rather utilized a short term paper-over-the-problem solution to dull any attempts to seek out a (more painful) long term solution.
Click to expand...

I'm all for helping people improve in the long-term too. I support public education, subsidized college loans, and government-sponsored financial literacy centers in poor communities. But that doesn't change the fact that the poor have some serious problems right now that need to be addressed in order to even get to the point where they're able to earn more in the long term. For example, food stamps (because malnutrition decreases earning power), Medicaid (because being chronically sick decreases earning power), addiction treatment (because being an addict decreases earning power), unemployment insurance (because having to burn through your savings when you get laid off makes people extremely risk-averse), etc.

Virtually every anti-poverty program, including those that hand out cash for immediate needs, is designed to help people's long-term prospects in one way or another. The efficacy varies from one program to another, but the goals are generally similar.

In the case of redistributed grades, there is no long-term (or even short-term) improvement in the lives of the affected people. Grades are just a proxy for educational attainment, which is itself just a proxy for earning power. Employers and universities would quickly catch on to the fact that everyone from a certain high school seemed to be earning C's, they'd question why that is, and they'd no longer trust the grades.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because schools and taxation are not the same thing at all. The biggest reason is that the purpose of both institutions are far different. Taxation is how the government pays for its activities while education is about creating an educated enough workforce to sustain a first world country. Because the goals are so different, different rules would apply.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, because it is wrong for a serious education.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm all for helping people improve in the long-term too. I support public education, subsidized college loans, and government-sponsored financial literacy centers in poor communities.
Click to expand...

public support of education can absolutely serve as a long-term aid to escape from poverty, as can financial literacy centers. however, encouraging young and poor high school graduates to go into debt in order to maybe earn a degree of questionable and shrinking value has created an education bubble in this nation. subsidized college loans do more damage than good, methinks.

But that doesn't change the fact that the poor have some serious problems right now that need to be addressed in order to even get to the point where they're able to earn more in the long term. For example, food stamps (because malnutrition decreases earning power), Medicaid (because being chronically sick decreases earning power), addiction treatment (because being an addict decreases earning power), unemployment insurance (because having to burn through your savings when you get laid off makes people extremely risk-averse), etc.
Click to expand...

except that all of those programs as currently designed ignore the fact that people respond to incentives. so if we're going to structure immediate support, then it has to be in a manner other than simple transfer payments that have been demonstrated to encourage dependency and an entitlement culture. so our attempts to help end up hurting in the long run. my problem isn't with the intent it's with our means.

In the case of redistributed grades, there is no long-term (or even short-term) improvement in the lives of the affected people.
Click to expand...

and there is no long-term improvement in the lives of those who recieve transfer payments in the form of benefits; we merely set them up to make it easier for them to later take advantage of opportunities. the same is true of education redistribution that exposes the student to higher education.

grades are just a proxy for educational attainment, which is itself just a proxy for earning power. Employers and universities would quickly catch on to the fact that everyone from a certain high school seemed to be earning C's, they'd question why that is, and they'd no longer trust the grades.
Click to expand...

no one is talking about complete grade redistribution; we are talking about a progressive grade code.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Whoa, more income does not necessarily lead to a better life, conversely lower income does not necessarily mean that your life will suck.
Click to expand...

Exceptions, Harry. If you have more wealth, you are generally going to not live in poor areas and will be more apt to provide for yourself (and loved ones) basic needs... or more. Better grades will not equate this.
 
cpwill said:
so no, you can't utilize logic to demonstrate how one falls on one side of dividing line and one falls on the other.
Click to expand...

Didn't say that. Since there is no comparison, you are asking me to show a logical comparison between a mouse and a flux capacitor. It does not compute.
 
other said:
No.

I'm for progressive teaching, where those students who are struggling get more attention and focused instruction in the classroom.
Click to expand...

See i don't even agree this this necessarily... I think all students should have equal attention and focus... i don't think you should take away teaching time from smart students to help the dumb one.
There should be help session any student can attend, sothose that are struggling could show up. This does not take away from the smarter kids but adds for every kid, because the kids that arn't struggling could still go to the help session to further their knowledge.

Progressive teaching just encourages everyone to stay at the same level at the intelligent and hard-workings expense.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Exceptions, Harry. If you have more wealth, you are generally going to not live in poor areas and will be more apt to provide for yourself (and loved ones) basic needs... or more. Better grades will not equate this.
Click to expand...

Not to mention it would hurt you if you got grades you didn't deserve. People will think you're smarter than you really are, give you too many responsibilities and you screw it up because you are still incompetent.

Another problem is the education system in and of itself. Trying to quantify something in the manner that we do just doesn't work that well. For example, there are some people in my school (I'm a senior in high school) who aren't very "book smart", but can talk their way through any situation, and have an incredible amount of street smarts. That never gets quantified, and sent to colleges, and could have a huge impact on those people's competency in a job. Our school system, and education system is set up to cater to a narrow set of skills and abilities, and extracurriculars and sports are only given so much weight in college admissions and the like.

Going back to the original question, it hurts the top students to take their grades and give it to the stupid, because it overestimates the competency of the lower students, and underestimates the competency of the higher students.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Didn't say that. Since there is no comparison, you are asking me to show a logical comparison between a mouse and a flux capacitor. It does not compute.
Click to expand...

no, but if they are two different things, then it is possible to draw that dividing line where classification occurs.

for example, a donkey is a mammal, but a bottle of whiskey is not. you ask me to prove that a donkey is a mammal while a bottle of whiskey is not. i say okay, my metric is that all mammals have internal skeletal structures and are warm-blooded. the Donkey has an internal skeletal structure and warm blood, so it is a mammal, while a bottle of whiskey - though delicious and nutritious - has no internal skeletal structure, and no blood; and therefore is not.

two items. a dividing metric to demonstrate that one belongs in the group under discussion and one does not. I ask again for what your dividing metric is that isn't obviously bent to provide a predetermined conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom