Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, that's about the stupidest concept I've seen in a long time, to equate grades to $$$.
Do you understand that there are huge differences between the two? Do I have to explain that to you? Or do you truly believe it's essentially the same?
Do you really believe that $$$ is always fairly acquired, even theoretically, as grades are? If you live in the real world, you'd know better.
But hey, if you and the OP want to equate grades with money, I can play along. Let's ask the following questions:
- Would you want the amount of money you can amass to be restricted to an amount determined by the government? Grades are restricted to a certain number for students by the school administration. If the school says that little Jimmy can only take 6 subjects, then little Jimmy can only get 7 A's at best. He can't get 10 A's.
That's an odd premise. I've heard of schools requiring a minimum number of classes for graduation, but have not seen a school that limits the number of classes a student can take. There's zero hour classes (before the regular school day begins), summer school, some schools offer Saturday classes, many states have classes available online (Illinois Virtual School), etc.
Quote:
- Would you want income to have nothing to do with health care so that everyone gets exactly the same health coverage? In a school, the D student gets the same care from the school nurse as the A student.
Not so. What happens when the school nurse that is shared between four schools is there when the D student has chills and a high fever, but at a different school in his/her rotation when the A student has chills and a high fever? Will both students receive the same care from the school nurse? No. The D student receives medical care from the school nurse. The A student is told to sit in a chair outside the empty nurse's office while his/her parents are called to come and remove their sick child from the school.
Quote:
Do I need to go on about how grades are not money and to compare the two is really, really stupid?
Was this topic offered as a comparison? Or an analogy based on the concept of non-incapacitated people working hard enough to earn the ability to obtain an adequate amount of something one should be responsible for providing for oneself and, if applicable, one's family?
Why reward slackers and penalize hard workers? What do you think the outcome will be when incentives are placed into effect for slackers?
Wisconsin is having a hard time keeping enough contributing members of society in their state to be able to afford services for their ever-growing welfare rolls. Why? They offer a high level of social services to some while penalizing productive businesses and individuals with high taxes. WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL (http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/opinion/315521 - broken link)
Virtually all health care, like virtually all education, gets government funding now. Even the braggarts (not necessarily directed at you) who claim all this "personal responsibility" for themselves get a frickin' tax deduction if they pay for ins. themselves, and their employer gets one if s/he pays for it. Most doctors are private practices, but get medicare, medicaid money, and the vast majority of hospitals are non-profit, meaning they get a huge tax break (e.g. pay no property taxes) for providing care. Plus they all receive state and federal funds as well.
That's an odd premise. I've heard of schools requiring a minimum number of classes for graduation, but have not seen a school that limits the number of classes a student can take. There's zero hour classes (before the regular school day begins), summer school, some schools offer Saturday classes, many states have classes available online (Illinois Virtual School), etc.
When I was in school, I was allowed no more than 20 (maybe 21, 21.5) credits per semester. That was the maximum. That means that I could only take a certain amount of classes. Also, we were forbidden to retake classes in which we got better than a D. So, it's not an "odd premise" at all that there are limits on classes that can be taken.
So again, I ask you, do you want incomes to be limited by government regulation the way grades are limited by school administration??
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not so. What happens when the school nurse that is shared between four schools is there when the D student has chills and a high fever, but at a different school in his/her rotation when the A student has chills and a high fever? Will both students receive the same care from the school nurse? No. The D student receives medical care from the school nurse. The A student is told to sit in a chair outside the empty nurse's office while his/her parents are called to come and remove their sick child from the school.
What kind of shanty school district were you in? In my school district, our high school had its own nurse who was there every day. When any student went to her, that student received exactly the same care as any other student, regardless of grades.
So again, I ask you do you want health care to be doled out equally by the government regardless of people's incomes just as a school doles out health care to its students regardless of students' grades?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Was this topic offered as a comparison? Or an analogy based on the concept of non-incapacitated people working hard enough to earn the ability to obtain an adequate amount of something one should be responsible for providing for oneself and, if applicable, one's family?
An analogy is a type of comparison, so the analogy given was absolutely a coomparison. In an analogy, the items compared must be "analogous"; the premise of the analogy given is that grades are like money, a premise which was readily accepted by those of you wanting to oversimplify the situation with money/income/taxes in order to make your point. However, I, and several others, pointed out the flaw in that analogy, that being that grades are not analogous to money. Money is a compensation or reward given in return for a product or service rendered, with the purpose of enriching the payee. Grades are a measure of a student's knowledge and performance, theoretically given objectively, with the purpose of informing the student and any other interested party of the student's level of education.
Money is "tender" - it can be tendered, given up in exchange for other products and services. Grades are measurements which can be used by any interested party for whatever purpose they choose, and they are NOT tendered, but permanently remain as a static measurement.
Money can be earned, received or given as a gift, won as a prize, or stolen. Grades can be earned but not received or given as gifts, won as prizes, or stolen.
Money is not a measurement of anything, it is arbitrarily decided upon in a market by a buyer and a seller. So Tom can sell Steve a glass of lemonade for $1, and he can then sell Robert the same type of glass of lemonade for $2 - in either case the price is arbitrary and fluctuates based on market factors such as supply and demand. On the other hand, grades are not arbitrary, but rather are given based on a standard of measurement. If Tom has Steve and Robert in his class, and Steve gets 9 out of 10 questions right, and Robert also gets 9 out of 10 questions right, then Tom the teacher must give both of them the same grade; he cannot arbitrarily give Steve a B and Robert a C. He must give them the same grade, the one that correlates to a 90% score based on what the school has determined that to be.
Why do you and others insist on oversimplifying this to make your point? Could it be that you don't even understand the flaws in your own position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why reward slackers and penalize hard workers? What do you think the outcome will be when incentives are placed into effect for slackers?
Because the capitalist market we use does not reward hard work and penalize slackers; rather, it rewards those with the right combination of timing, work, and luck and it penalizes those with the wrong combination of timing, work, and luck. Why do you think there are people who work 2 or 3 jobs and have a hard time making ends meet while there are trust-fund brats who don't work, who are "slackers", and live off mommy and daddy's money???
Let's use the grades "analogy" you're so fond of...
So you show up at school, and you are told by your teacher that in order to get an A you will need to work very hard, get A's on your tests, and get A's on most of your homework assignments. So you work very, very hard and you manage to get a B. Meanwhile, you notice that Laura, who is in the same class, is always doodling, listening to her iPod, cutting class, never has any homework done, and is a total SLACKER. She doesn't know even the basics of the subject of the class; but she gets an A for the class. So you go to the teacher and say, "Why does Laura get an A and I get a B??? I worked very hard and she slacked off the whole time; I know most of what you taught and she knows nothing; why does she get a better grade??" And the teacher says, "Oh, well, you see, Laura's family goes back a few generations, her great-grandpapa got lots and lots of A's, and he passed them on and Laura actually had a trust fund set up by her parents which is full of A's, so she is using those."
How are you with that? Why should slacker Laura be rewarded while you're penalized for working hard? Is that fair??? You're all about fairness for the hard workers, right??? So is that fair to reward slacker Laura while penalizing hard workers???
Wisconsin is having a hard time keeping enough contributing members of society in their state to be able to afford services for their ever-growing welfare rolls. Why? They offer a high level of social services to some while penalizing productive businesses and individuals with high taxes. WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL (http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/opinion/315521 - broken link)
Here's another example of what happens when people are given something regardless of being a slacker:
That's hot!
Should Paris and others like her be forced to earn their money instead of being slackers who get something for nothing???
Oh wait, I get it now, it's not so much about slackers and hard workers, it's more about pushing capitalism and putting money before people...
That's an odd premise. I've heard of schools requiring a minimum number of classes for graduation, but have not seen a school that limits the number of classes a student can take. There's zero hour classes (before the regular school day begins), summer school, some schools offer Saturday classes, many states have classes available online (Illinois Virtual School), etc.
Not so. What happens when the school nurse that is shared between four schools is there when the D student has chills and a high fever, but at a different school in his/her rotation when the A student has chills and a high fever? Will both students receive the same care from the school nurse? No. The D student receives medical care from the school nurse. The A student is told to sit in a chair outside the empty nurse's office while his/her parents are called to come and remove their sick child from the school.
Was this topic offered as a comparison? Or an analogy based on the concept of non-incapacitated people working hard enough to earn the ability to obtain an adequate amount of something one should be responsible for providing for oneself and, if applicable, one's family?
Why reward slackers and penalize hard workers? What do you think the outcome will be when incentives are placed into effect for slackers?
Wisconsin is having a hard time keeping enough contributing members of society in their state to be able to afford services for their ever-growing welfare rolls. Why? They offer a high level of social services to some while penalizing productive businesses and individuals with high taxes. WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL (http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/opinion/315521 - broken link)
The opinion piece about Wisconsin was written by Mr. Hefty who is the retired CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield and past chairman of Competitive Wisconsin. It is hardly surprising that someone with his background has his viewpoint.
The opinion piece about Wisconsin was written by Mr. Hefty who is the retired CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield and past chairman of Competitive Wisconsin. It is hardly surprising that someone with his background has his viewpoint.
What about Princeton's study results, on which Mr. Hefty was commenting? What incentive did the Princeton study have to find that people who realized their hard work was being penalized moved out of the state? Wisconsin was looking for answers to their problem, and they got them.
By the way, Hefty was co-chair of Wisconsin Democrat Governor Jim Doyle's Economic Growth Council. Why wouldn't he explain to the Governor and the rest of the state why Wisconsin is having a problem with businesses and high earners leaving the state?
When I was in school, I was allowed no more than 20 (maybe 21, 21.5) credits per semester. That was the maximum. That means that I could only take a certain amount of classes. Also, we were forbidden to retake classes in which we got better than a D. So, it's not an "odd premise" at all that there are limits on classes that can be taken.
There's nothing stopping you from taking classes somewhere else, too. You'd be surprised at the number of hard working students who do that.
Quote:
So again, I ask you, do you want incomes to be limited by government regulation the way grades are limited by school administration??
You're only limited by that one school. You can also take classes elsewhere. Your premise fails.
Quote:
What kind of shanty school district were you in? In my school district, our high school had its own nurse who was there every day.
Good for you, but from my experience in three different states from my school days in the 1960's to my grown children's school days in the 80's and 90's and current practice in metro Chicago school districts (some of which are spending $10,000+ per student per year), school nurses are assigned anywhere from 3 to 5 schools among which they rotate. They are at each school on a part-time basis. And we're lucky - more than half of public schools across the country do not have a school nurse, according to the National Association of School Nurses.
"The Illinois Administrative Code mandates that nurses working at schools must be registered professionals. The code requires school boards develop and keep a job description of a school nurse's duties. The code also talks about preventing communicable diseases, maintaining health records, conducting vision and hearing screenings, and acting as a liaison between homes, schools and communities. It says nothing, however, about requiring a nurse to be a part of a school's staff.
On the federal level, several laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, require school districts to provide nursing services to students with special needs. Still, nurses are not required to be at schools for the entire school day." Illinois law does not require schools to have nurses on staff
Quote:
When any student went to her, that student received exactly the same care as any other student, regardless of grades.
So again, I ask you do you want health care to be doled out equally by the government regardless of people's incomes just as a school doles out health care to its students regardless of students' grades?
Another of your premises that fails. See above.
Quote:
Money is not a measurement of anything, it is arbitrarily decided upon in a market by a buyer and a seller. So Tom can sell Steve a glass of lemonade for $1, and he can then sell Robert the same type of glass of lemonade for $2 - in either case the price is arbitrary and fluctuates based on market factors such as supply and demand. On the other hand, grades are not arbitrary, but rather are given based on a standard of measurement.
WOW, is that ever an epic fail! Grades are frequently subjective, and vary widely by instructor as well as school/institution.
Quote:
Why do you and others insist on oversimplifying this to make your point? Could it be that you don't even understand the flaws in your own position?
You have numerous failures in your premises and logic, and you don't even recognize the overly simplistic, almost childlike perspective from which you're trying to argue. Aren't you embarassed?
Quote:
Why do you think there are people who work 2 or 3 jobs and have a hard time making ends meet while there are trust-fund brats who don't work, who are "slackers", and live off mommy and daddy's money???
Because someone had already earned the trust-fund brats' money. I know you don't like it, but that's the truth. And hey, aren't you glad those trust fund brats aren't taking someone else's job? If they can afford to live without earning money at a job, that means that job is available to someone who does need it. Furthermore, isn't the money those trust fund brats are spending creating a demand for jobs for others?
There's nothing stopping you from taking classes somewhere else, too. You'd be surprised at the number of hard working students who do that.
You're only limited by that one school. You can also take classes elsewhere. Your premise fails.
To be analogous, you would only be limited by the one government. If our government limited your income, you could go to another nation and get more income under their government. There are people who currently do this as well.
Nice try, but you fall short. Again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Good for you, but from my experience in three different states from my school days in the 1960's to my grown children's school days in the 80's and 90's and current practice in metro Chicago school districts (some of which are spending $10,000+ per student per year), school nurses are assigned anywhere from 3 to 5 schools among which they rotate. They are at each school on a part-time basis. And we're lucky - more than half of public schools across the country do not have a school nurse, according to the National Association of School Nurses.
"The Illinois Administrative Code mandates that nurses working at schools must be registered professionals. The code requires school boards develop and keep a job description of a school nurse's duties. The code also talks about preventing communicable diseases, maintaining health records, conducting vision and hearing screenings, and acting as a liaison between homes, schools and communities. It says nothing, however, about requiring a nurse to be a part of a school's staff.
On the federal level, several laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, require school districts to provide nursing services to students with special needs. Still, nurses are not required to be at schools for the entire school day." Illinois law does not require schools to have nurses on staff
I wouldn't know what goes on in hick-land, I grew up in and still live in a civilized area and our schools have nurses.
Even so - the point remains. An A student gets the same treatment as the D student in a school in Hickville, Illinois. If there is no nurse available, the same thing will happen with an A student as with a D student. If a nurse is available, the same thing will happen to both, also. Health care in a school, regardless of whether a nurse is there or not, is given equally to all students regardless of grades. Grades have no bearing on what is done for a student's health in any school, but money does have a bearing on what is done for people in hospitals and medical centers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Another of your premises that fails. See above.
Try again, see above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
WOW, is that ever an epic fail! Grades are frequently subjective, and vary widely by instructor as well as school/institution.
OK, "epic fail"...what next, "epic phail"?? "pwned"??? You claim to be a grown-up but you speak MMORPG???
Grades can be subjective in some classes but they are not arbitrary. Grades can always be challenged and reviewed by a higher authority in the school administration; incomes cannot be challenged and then reviewed by the government and overturned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You have numerous failures in your premises and logic, and you don't even recognize the overly simplistic, almost childlike perspective from which you're trying to argue. Aren't you embarassed?
If I have "numerous failures in your premises and logic" then why haven't you been able to demonstrate even one of them???
As for childlike oversimplification, using grades as an analogy for income/money is as stupidly oversimplified as it can get, and yet you are trying, in vain, to defend that analogy.
You failed at it and you continue to evade the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Because someone had already earned the trust-fund brats' money. I know you don't like it, but that's the truth.
OK, so if a person's parent already earned the trust-fund brats' grades, you'd be OK with the trust-fund brat getting an A from her parents while you worked hard for your B - right???
Just answer yes or no - it's a simple question. You keep dancing around this one because it's the final nail in your argument's coffin, but that's OK - it's more and more obvious to anyone that you're dancing around the question and avoiding it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And hey, aren't you glad those trust fund brats aren't taking someone else's job? If they can afford to live without earning money at a job, that means that job is available to someone who does need it. Furthermore, isn't the money those trust fund brats are spending creating a demand for jobs for others?
So then aren't you glad that those slackers who get welfare aren't taking someone else's job??? If they can afford to live without earning money at a job, that means that job is available to someone who does need it. Furthermore, isn't the money those welfare recipients are spending creating a demand for jobs for others?
Or is it only OK for wealthy slackers???
What is it that you're arguing for here:
A) All people should have to work for and earn what they get
B) No people should have to work for and earn everything they get
C) Only the people that Capitalism says it's OK for should be able to get what they didn't earn but those people that Capitalism says it's not OK for should have to earn every single penny
Which one?
You go from whining that "waaahh the hard workers wouldn't get the good grades but the slackers would get some of their grades without working, waaaahhhh not fair, slackers getting something for nothing, unfair!!!!" to "Well it's OK for that trust-fund baby slacker to never work for what they get, it's perfectly OK and fair...for THEM....only...cuz I think so..."
So answer the question -
Should the kids in school whose parents earned good grades be able to inherit those good grades? If Laura's dad went to Princeton, Harvard, and MIT for his BA, MA, and PhD and got straight A's then shouldn't Laura get to inherit those grades and ace every class without having to earn any grades herself??? You seem to be OK with people inheriting money their parents earn, and you are the one who insisted that Grades are a great analogy for money/income and for how "hard workers are penalized while slackers are rewarded" - so please let us know, should people inherit their parents' grades???
Let's see if you can actually answer this time instead of dodging the question for a third or fourth time... I won't hold my breath, though.
To be analogous, you would only be limited by the one government. If our government limited your income, you could go to another nation and get more income under their government. There are people who currently do this as well.
Nice try, but you fall short. Again.
No. You don't understand. Again, students are not limited to one school only. Many students are concurrently enrolled in more than one school at a time, and in some cases in more than one level of school at a time. It gets complicated, but as an example, there are many hard working highly achieving students who are concurrently enrolled in high school and their local college/university at the same time, taking classes at both. Their transcripts and GPA's are not intermixed because highly selective colleges/universities will not transfer credits that appear anywhere on the student's high school transcript, only classes that are documented on an accredited college's/university's transcript, and the students taking the college classes do not wish to repeat all of the same college classes they've already taken when they matriculate. I'm sorry that your very limited life experience hasn't allowed you to have observed the full spectrum of opportunities that are available to those who work hard and seek them out, but the perspective from your limited experience is causing your premises to be ridiculously simplistic and wrong.
Quote:
I wouldn't know what goes on in hick-land, I grew up in and still live in a civilized area and our schools have nurses.
Odd remark.
Quote:
Even so - the point remains. An A student gets the same treatment as the D student in a school in Hickville, Illinois. If there is no nurse available, the same thing will happen with an A student as with a D student. If a nurse is available, the same thing will happen to both, also. Health care in a school, regardless of whether a nurse is there or not, is given equally to all students regardless of grades. Grades have no bearing on what is done for a student's health in any school, but money does have a bearing on what is done for people in hospitals and medical centers.
Really? Why is it the case that some hospitalized rich people die, while some medicaid patients' lives are saved?
Quote:
OK, "epic fail"...what next, "epic phail"?? "pwned"??? You claim to be a grown-up but you speak MMORPG???
Part of what I do is student advocacy. I spend a fair amount of time with teens and their families.
Quote:
Grades can be subjective in some classes but they are not arbitrary. Grades can always be challenged and reviewed by a higher authority in the school administration; incomes cannot be challenged and then reviewed by the government and overturned.
That's a good one.
What do you call refundable tax credits?
Quote:
If I have "numerous failures in your premises and logic" then why haven't you been able to demonstrate even one of them???
Ummm... WOOOSH... they went over your head. I can't make you understand if you don't want to; you'll have to be open to researching and learning.
Quote:
OK, so if a person's parent already earned the trust-fund brats' grades, you'd be OK with the trust-fund brat getting an A from her parents while you worked hard for your B - right???
Grades aren't passed down directly like that, but are indirectly passed down through the advantages that exposure to a broader range of experiences brings to the young children whose parents make the effort to provide for them. This need not be expensive. Public libraries are loaded with books, magazines, videos, CD's, PC's and educational programs, PC's with internet access... all provided by the taxpayers. Most teachers would applaud those efforts. You, however, seem to have a problem with it.
Just answer yes or no - it's a simple question. You keep dancing around this one because it's the final nail in your argument's coffin, but that's OK - it's more and more obvious to anyone that you're dancing around the question and avoiding it.
Anyone can see that you're in way over your head. Your thinking is rudimentary, and you've brought nothing but your opinion and conjecture to this debate, while I've brought facts with linked references.
Quote:
So then aren't you glad that those slackers who get welfare aren't taking someone else's job??? If they can afford to live without earning money at a job, that means that job is available to someone who does need it. Furthermore, isn't the money those welfare recipients are spending creating a demand for jobs for others?
If they're on welfare, it's a net loss to the taxpayers, even if it does free a job for someone else. Taxpayers don't provide welfare benefits to trust fund brats - they pay their own way.
Quote:
What is it that you're arguing for here:
A) All people should have to work for and earn what they get
B) No people should have to work for and earn everything they get
C) Only the people that Capitalism says it's OK for should be able to get what they didn't earn but those people that Capitalism says it's not OK for should have to earn every single penny
Which one?
Modified (A). Some people do not need to work or keep working to accrue additional income. They already have enough to pay for what they need.
Quote:
You seem to be OK with people inheriting money their parents earn, and you are the one who insisted that Grades are a great analogy for money/income and for how "hard workers are penalized while slackers are rewarded" - so please let us know, should people inherit their parents' grades???
See above.
Quote:
Let's see if you can actually answer this time instead of dodging the question for a third or fourth time... I won't hold my breath, though.
Dodging the question? I've been providing facts and referenced resources and you've been providing faulty emotion-based reasoning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the hard workers wouldn't get the good grades but the slackers would get some of their grades without working, waaaahhhh not fair, slackers getting something for nothing, unfair!!!!" to "Well it's OK for that trust-fund baby slacker to never work for what they get, it's perfectly OK and fair...for THEM....only...cuz I think so..."
