• 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
rathi said:
That bring up some evidence for your actual point. Explain the mechanism by which progressive taxation prevents people from learning how to make money.
Click to expand...

EITC, it is our form of negative tax brackets.
It pays money to people who earn low incomes.

It is a direct cash payment with no "learning" qualifier.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
EITC, it is our form of negative tax brackets.
It pays money to people who earn low incomes.

It is a direct cash payment with no "learning" qualifier.
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove that it prevents people from "learning" how to earn more income. For example, when I got EITC money I used it to pay tutition.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
EITC, it is our form of negative tax brackets.
It pays money to people who earn low incomes.

It is a direct cash payment with no "learning" qualifier.
Click to expand...

I'm all for a welfare system that emphasizes improving the recipient's ability to manage personal finances, but that won't always work.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
I'm all for a welfare system that emphasizes improving the recipient's ability to manage personal finances, but that won't always be useful.
Click to expand...

And I do agree, but to what extent do we provide welfare for those who chose not to take advantage of the "learning" process of improving their own well being?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And I do agree, but to what extent do we provide welfare for those who chose not to take advantage of the "learning" process of improving their own well being?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has statistics on that, unfortunately.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You're probably right, but the best we can do is speculate.
So using speculation, what do you think the answer could be?
Click to expand...

I would venture to guess (and its a guess) that the majority use the funds as intended.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And I do agree, but to what extent do we provide welfare for those who chose not to take advantage of the "learning" process of improving their own well being?
Click to expand...

It's not a serious concern in the United States. Ambition is high for the most part.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I agree. We have gotten too used to our success and have become careless as a result. I believe this is one of our top five problems as a nation. We no longer believe in something greater than ourselves. Even what passes for love of our culture is really just love of the self, which is why ideologies like libertarianism are flourishing (that and the ongoing effort to reshape history in that image). I still wish we made the great gothic style buildings of years past and loved our society in that manner.
Click to expand...

Amen. But I'm much more cynical. I want seccession. I want to see a war fought, between decent Americans, and America's bums. I want to see the bums defeated, and thrown either in prison, or out of the country, FOR GOOD. I want to see The Age of Political Correctness and Post-Modernism ended, with extreme prejudice. If this entails the redrawing of the world map, so be it.
 
Last edited:
ElCid said:
Amen. But I'm much more cynical. I want seccession. I want to see a war fought, between decent Americans, and America's bums. I want to see the bums defeated, and thrown either in prison, or out of the country, FOR GOOD. I want to see The Age of Political Correctness and Post-Modernism ended, with extreme prejudice. If this entails the redrawing of the world map, so be it.
Click to expand...

There are no bums. We're a nation of high performers. Anyone who doesn't work hard is about as repressed and isolated as a person can be.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
This is such a bad idea. It's wrong and unfair. It's robbery. It would teach kids to have a bad work ethic and ensure that everyone passes because the smarter kids pulled your weight. It's unfair to both those who excel and those who fail. Sometimes tough love is necessary, and kids need to learn through failure and get their act together.
Click to expand...

thank you that is unfortuntely and precisely right. this sort of distribution does teach people to have bad work ethics and ensure that everyone is taken care of only because the high performers pulled others weight.
 
No. It serves no benefit to the students who aren't performing.

Kind of like social-passing. Does more harm than good.
 
megaprogman said:
redress said:
What a progressive tax system does is not try to be fair(it's not), or try to equalize the tax burden(it does not). What it tries to do is ensure that taxes have the least effect on standard of living as possible, A person making 20k who pays 1k in taxes has their standard of living effected much more than a person making 100k and paying 10k. That is it's strength. You have not addressed this aspect of it, nor does your comparison to bricks and airplanes...err, taxes and grades.[/redress] <-- here is a great (sarcasm) tautology where redress is pointing out a key difference between grades and taxes.
Click to expand...

:shrug: and all this does is attempt to make sure that grades do not harm those who are most disadvantaged. redress claims that it has nothing to do with "fairness" but then she describes a value of fairness in her descriptor. she is saying that those who can more easily carry the burden, should - it's not a systemic descriptor of why we should treat grades as the property of the student and income as the property of society, it's simply saying that it's better to do the second than the first. the implicit assumption then is that grades are the property of society, society simply chooses not to take it.

captain courtesy 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...
Click to expand...

here CC is arguing that income is not solely based on effort. I agree. so do you. but we have both agreed that neither are grades. Grades, like income, are based on a complex swirl of factors, including intelligence, work ethic, natural talent, familial background, how you were raised, luck... you and I have both agreed that grades and income are the product of what CC is describing here, so holding this up as the dividing line doesn't make sense.

megapropman said:
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.
Click to expand...

how in the world would the goals change ownership of the product? you just said "the goals are different so there." are you saying that because education is more important than taxation, we should have a strict market system in order to have the strongest product, whereas with taxation we can have a more redistributionist model because the quality of the result is less important?
Click to expand...
 
tessaesque said:
No. It serves no benefit to the students who aren't performing.

Kind of like social-passing. Does more harm than good.
Click to expand...

and does it do a man any good to feed him for a day but not teach him how to fish?
 
cpwill said:
and does it do a man any good to feed him for a day but not teach him how to fish?
Click to expand...


It's not always a question of skills, but of opportunity.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
and incentives.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with a culture taught to prize material success is that success has to be plausible or people will think there's a better deal waiting for them somewhere. The answer to that is to no longer encourage material success.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: and all this does is attempt to make sure that grades do not harm those who are most disadvantaged. redress claims that it has nothing to do with "fairness" but then she describes a value of fairness in her descriptor. she is saying that those who can more easily carry the burden, should - it's not a systemic descriptor of why we should treat grades as the property of the student and income as the property of society, it's simply saying that it's better to do the second than the first. the implicit assumption then is that grades are the property of society, society simply chooses not to take it.
Click to expand...

And that priority alone is enough reason to treat each situation differently. Systematic considerations do not apply when that priority changes because approach would change with priority and desired results (in other words, the system we build and what we do to it and with it entirely depends on what we want to get out of it), given that those two considerations are the basis for the system itself and its raison d'etre.

cpwill said:
here CC is arguing that income is not solely based on effort. I agree. so do you. but we have both agreed that neither are grades. Grades, like income, are based on a complex swirl of factors, including intelligence, work ethic, natural talent, familial background, how you were raised, luck... you and I have both agreed that grades and income are the product of what CC is describing here, so holding this up as the dividing line doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Personally I believe that grades as a result of work are more directly comparable to the value of work than the results of economic activities. Also redistributing grades does not build people up while some level of wealth redistribution does. And once you bring in the goal of the system, his comment takes on a whole new meaning.

cpwill said:
how in the world would the goals change ownership of the product? you just said "the goals are different so there." are you saying that because education is more important than taxation, we should have a strict market system in order to have the strongest product, whereas with taxation we can have a more redistributionist model because the quality of the result is less important?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, I believe the reason for redistribution of wealth is important because the quality is more important. However, the basis of that quality is that is that money is useful to as many people as optimally as possible within practical limitation. But yes, the goal of a system is fundamental in how we look at it and why its there, given that no societal system is natural and all are constructed by people at some point, so that's not really a valid criticism for you to bring up, because you cannot separate something from its own nature.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
And that priority alone is enough reason to treat each situation differently.
Click to expand...

a vague notion of fairness? a decision that we should treat two things of like sources differently just because it feels better? because one of them screws us and another screws others?

Systematic considerations do not apply when that priority changes because approach would change with priority and desired results (in other words, the system we build and what we do to it and with it entirely depends on what we want to get out of it), given that those two considerations are the basis for the system itself and its raison d'etre
Click to expand...

then the grades do not belong to the student and we are free to do with them as we please.

Personally I believe that grades as a result of work are more directly comparable to the value of work than the results of economic activities.
Click to expand...

really? would you like me to go get you some quick figures on the GPA differences of minority children from single-parent families v those of middle class two-parent white households? do you think there would be a strong distinction? work comes from factors that we are self do not generate - we are imparted a work ethic from our parents who then hold us to standards. will the work or the value of the work be greater or lesser in a family where the parents sit down and go over the homework with the child?

Also redistributing grades does not build people up while some level of wealth redistribution does
Click to expand...

and so the dividing line is whether or not the move is of net benefit to those who are receiving the subsidy?

because you know the next thing I"m going to do is demonstrate to you how wealth redistribution has created a dependency class in the United States of America, trained an entire underclass of people to depend on hand out after hand out after hand out that will always be coming... we have destroyed the black family in this country, we have shoved entire generations into illiteracy, illegitimacy, incarceration, and a brokenness of spirit because we were naive enough to think that simple wealth redistribution would build them up rather than create an entitlement society.

And once you bring in the goal of the system, his comment takes on a whole new meaning.
Click to expand...

so the goal is solid what you're going with?

then I'm going to need a clear deliniation of how the goals are different (both education and wealth redistribution strike me as attempts to build someone up), and how that difference somehow means that we should treat one product which is the result of a swirl of factors including intelligence, raising, work ethic, and so on differently from another product which is the result of a swirl of factors including intelligence, raising, work ethic, and so on.

Ultimately, I believe the reason for redistribution of wealth is important because the quality is more important
Click to expand...

except that we are agreed that redistribution does not increase the quality of the recipient.

However, the basis of that quality is that is that money is useful to as many people as optimally as possible within practical limitation.
Click to expand...

and better grades are useful to many students.

But yes, the goal of a system is fundamental in how we look at it and why its there, given that no societal system is natural and all are constructed by people at some point, so that's not really a valid criticism for you to bring up, because you cannot separate something from its own nature.
Click to expand...

but that is my precise point. you are attempting to seperate one of these things from its' nature. which I don't know.
 
Morality Games said:
Part of the problem with a culture taught to prize material success is that success has to be plausible or people will think there's a better deal waiting for them somewhere. The answer to that is to no longer encourage material success.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
a vague notion of fairness? a decision that we should treat two things of like sources differently just because it feels better? because one of them screws us and another screws others?
Click to expand...

People are going to be unfairly screwed if we do anything or if we do nothing (and have a lessez faire economy). So we make the best choice we can and make our best optimizations, based on our own viewpoints of course. This is the whole point of having a society and its best use (in my opinion)

cpwill said:
then the grades do not belong to the student and we are free to do with them as we please.
Click to expand...

If the system called for it, sure, but it would not be a good system. Trying to pin me down to an either or position won't work because I am taking things as a case by case basis and because of the differences I pointed out, there is no reason to treat them the same.

cpwill said:
really? would you like me to go get you some quick figures on the GPA differences of minority children from single-parent families v those of middle class two-parent white households? do you think there would be a strong distinction? work comes from factors that we are self do not generate - we are imparted a work ethic from our parents who then hold us to standards. will the work or the value of the work be greater or lesser in a family where the parents sit down and go over the homework with the child?
Click to expand...

I think there would be correlation between economic class, sure. However, you went too far with my point. More directly comparable does not mean absolutes as you seem to be trying to depict.

cpwill said:
and so the dividing line is whether or not the move is of net benefit to those who are receiving the subsidy?
Click to expand...

The benefit to society as a whole.

cpwill said:
because you know the next thing I"m going to do is demonstrate to you how wealth redistribution has created a dependency class in the United States of America, trained an entire underclass of people to depend on hand out after hand out after hand out that will always be coming... we have destroyed the black family in this country, we have shoved entire generations into illiteracy, illegitimacy, incarceration, and a brokenness of spirit because we were naive enough to think that simple wealth redistribution would build them up rather than create an entitlement society.
Click to expand...

I have seen examples of your demonstration in thread after thread, they are not very convincing.

cpwill said:
so the goal is solid what you're going with?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

cpwill said:
then I'm going to need a clear deliniation of how the goals are different (both education and wealth redistribution strike me as attempts to build someone up), and how that difference somehow means that we should treat one product which is the result of a swirl of factors including intelligence, raising, work ethic, and so on differently from another product which is the result of a swirl of factors including intelligence, raising, work ethic, and so on.
Click to expand...

(my) goals are the same, to build up society. However, since money and grades have different properties (for example money is a form of currency while grades, while can be seen as a currency, really aren't), the methods are different.

cpwill said:
except that we are agreed that redistribution does not increase the quality of the recipient.

and better grades are useful to many students.
Click to expand...

You will have to show me where I agreed to that, if I did, I do not remember it. There are a number of ways that redistribution can increase quality, allowing someone to go to college is one example.

cpwill said:
but that is my precise point. you are attempting to seperate one of these things from its' nature. which I don't know.
Click to expand...

Then I guess we disagree what the fundamental nature of these things are. :shrug:
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Let's apply this question to taxes and wealth next.
Click to expand...

Congratulations American! You just made the logical leap to a conclusion that we have been discussing for the last 27 pages!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom