• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
Taxing income and grades progressively is the same effect, yes it is comparable.
Take from the highest, to "boost" the lowest.

Grades are not necessarily based on effort, sometimes it's choice and situation (see. Cheating), sometimes it's based on luck and situation, (see. parental involvement in education and facility standards).
Click to expand...

HG, you can compare any two things. That does not make it a good comparison. This is not a good comparison, any more than comparing bricks and airplanes.
 
Redress said:
No, by your comparison, a lotto winner is smart and worked hard.
Click to expand...

Not at all, there are ALWAYS exceptions.
As CC pointed out both income and education can be based on factors not directly linked to effort, etc.

However, that does not justify taxing either for the exceptions.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not at all, there are ALWAYS exceptions.
As CC pointed out both income and education can be based on factors not directly linked to effort, etc.

However, that does not justify taxing either for the exceptions.
Click to expand...

Your example is nothing but exceptions.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You are using the word "progressive" in non-comparable ways. Income is not necessarily based on effort, either. Sometimes it's based on choice and situation. Income is not necessarily based on intelligence. Sometimes it is based on luck and situation. Grades do not necessarily have an impact on sucess. Your thread is so full of inconsistencies and inaccurate analogies, I could drive a truck through it. You wanted to make a point. You don't like progressive tax. OK. We get that. That's what you want to talk about, so go ahead. Don't play these kinds of games.
Click to expand...

To add:

No I didn't say I hated progressive taxes.
I really found this compelling and thought it would make for a good debate.

And I was right. :)
 
Redress said:
The same reason you hate rich white people.
Click to expand...

actually haymarket will tell you that i love rich white people.

but the policy i have posited here is designed to help our disadvantaged minority students. according to the common logic presented in our political dialogue, your opposition means you must want to harm those minority students.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
To add:

No I didn't say I hated progressive taxes.
I really found this compelling and thought it would make for a good debate.

And I was right. :)
Click to expand...

Now you're being dishonest, Harry. Read your posts. You are certainly against progressive taxes. That was the point of this thread.

And good debate? Sure, if you consider dicsussing and determining that you created a trap thread in order to discuss progressive taxes a good debate.
 
cpwill said:
actually haymarket will tell you that i love rich white people.

but the policy i have posited here is designed to help our disadvantaged minority students. according to the common logic presented in our political dialogue, your opposition means you must want to harm those minority students.
Click to expand...

Most of us are not really talking about education. We are talking about the fatally flawed comparison of taxes and grades.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Now you're being dishonest, Harry. Read your posts. You are certainly against progressive taxes. That was the point of this thread.

And good debate? Sure, if you consider dicsussing and determining that you created a trap thread in order to discuss progressive taxes a good debate.
Click to expand...

If I designed a tax structure, it would still be progressive.
Just not like it is now.

Damn it, I really really really had no intention of this being a trap.
Maybe I should of done it differently, but I was trying to be very implicit in my use of "Progressive" with the capitalization and the add on that I wanted to challenge beliefs and all that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Taxing income and grades progressively is the same effect, yes it is comparable.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't and no it isn't.

Take from the highest, to "boost" the lowest.
Click to expand...

That is overgeneralized and overly simplistic and the failure of your comparison. One's wealth is a direct correlation to what one can have. One's grades are not. There's the failure.

Grades are not necessarily based on effort, sometimes it's choice and situation (see. Cheating), sometimes it's based on luck and situation, (see. parental involvement in education and facility standards).
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Impact.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it isn't and no it isn't.



That is overgeneralized and overly simplistic and the failure of your comparison. One's wealth is a direct correlation to what one can have. One's grades are not. There's the failure.



You are missing the point. Impact.
Click to expand...

If you have low grades, you do not pass/graduate/receive a degree, limiting the potential of earning a higher income.
 
Redress said:
Most of us are not really talking about education. We are talking about the fatally flawed comparison of taxes and grades.
Click to expand...

see how you try to redirect the debate away from your desire to keep grades allocated to the very top, lucky few? your desire to protect the priviledges of the harvard/yale/rhodes scholars crowd at the expense of the poor urban students is quite telling. it's Class (if you'll pardon the pun) Warfare, and the advantaged students are winning with your support.



my point is less the direct comparison between the exchange of money and grades, and more the language and assumptions that we use when debating them. often many seem to start from the assumption that people just "happened" to recieve a higher income than others - without paying attention (and here i think there is a solid connection to be made) to the fact that the swirl of factors that go into higher incomes (work, intelligence, family background) pretty much mirror the factors that go into GPA. yet for some reason we discuss grades as though they were a product of the student, and income as though it was a product of society.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If I designed a tax structure, it would still be progressive.
Just not like it is now.

Damn it, I really really really had no intention of this being a trap.
Maybe I should of done it differently, but I was trying to be very implicit in my use of "Progressive" with the capitalization and the add on that I wanted to challenge beliefs and all that.
Click to expand...

From what I see, you have a few choices. You saw my "support" for progressive grades. Address it. Not only will I demonstrate, through debate, that your analogy makes no sense, but I will also demonstrate why progressive taxes make sense.

Or, you could just drop the analogy and talk about whatever it is that you want to talk about. Either way, I'm going to bed and will pick this up late in the afternoon or early in the evening.
 
cpwill said:
my point is less the direct comparison between the exchange of money and grades, and more the language and assumptions that we use when debating them. often many seem to start from the assumption that people just "happened" to recieve a higher income than others - without paying attention (and here i think there is a solid connection to be made) to the fact that the swirl of factors that go into higher incomes (work, intelligence, family background) pretty much mirror the factors that go into GPA. yet for some reason we discuss grades as though they were a product of the student, and income as though it was a product of society.
Click to expand...

This is precisely the point.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you have low grades, you do not pass/graduate/receive a degree, limiting the potential of earning a higher income.
Click to expand...

exactly. opponents of a progressive grade structure want to tilt educational benefits in favor of high-GPA'ers and away from middle and low grade recipients.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you have low grades, you do not pass/graduate/receive a degree, limiting the potential of earning a higher income.
Click to expand...

Plenty of folks do just fine without graduating. Graduating may give you a better chance, but it is not the only factor. Further, you are looking at this in black/white terms... another failure of your analogy. Someone who graduates with C's may end up as successful or more so than one who graduates with A's... and those C's may not be an accurate reflection of the individual's intelligence. Like I said, you attempted to oversimplify a very complex situation.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Now you're being dishonest, Harry. Read your posts. You are certainly against progressive taxes. That was the point of this thread.

And good debate? Sure, if you consider dicsussing and determining that you created a trap thread in order to discuss progressive taxes a good debate.
Click to expand...

interesting. can you use the exact same metric to demonstrate that one is acceptable for redistribution and the other is not? a neutral metric obviously not designed to predetermine the response?
 
cpwill said:
my point is less the direct comparison between the exchange of money and grades, and more the language and assumptions that we use when debating them. often many seem to start from the assumption that people just "happened" to recieve a higher income than others - without paying attention (and here i think there is a solid connection to be made) to the fact that the swirl of factors that go into higher incomes (work, intelligence, family background) pretty much mirror the factors that go into GPA. yet for some reason we discuss grades as though they were a product of the student, and income as though it was a product of society.
Click to expand...

No. The issue is that the causes for grades and income are far more complex than the simplified way that it is being described and that neither are a product of just the student or society, but of BOTH.
 
cpwill said:
interesting. can you use the exact same metric to demonstrate that one is acceptable for redistribution and the other is not? a neutral metric obviously not designed to predetermine the response?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Plenty of folks do just fine without graduating. Graduating may give you a better chance, but it is not the only factor. Further, you are looking at this in black/white terms... another failure of your analogy. Someone who graduates with C's may end up as successful or more so than one who graduates with A's... and those C's may not be an accurate reflection of the individual's intelligence. Like I said, you attempted to oversimplify a very complex situation.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No. The issue is that the causes for grades and income are far more complex than the simplified way that it is being described and that neither are a product of just the student or society, but of BOTH.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
then we would have to make them. the solution to the failure of redistributionist policies is coercion.
Click to expand...

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.

cpwill said:
so you want to reform education on the backs of the internet-deprived?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom