The College Republicans at the University of California-Merced ask fellow students, who support raising taxes on the rich, if they would be willing to redistribute their GPAs. They don’t think it’s a good idea because they earned their grades.
As good as these videos are, the resistance of the study’s participants to admit the flaws in their argument just shows how far gone our society is. These people have been confronted with the errors in their logic, but they are unable to alter their opinion based on a superior argument. What can be done if it is so difficult to aquaint people with the truth? This only serves as a reminder to those willing to acknowledge the problems we face of the impossibity of the reversal of this trend. No matter where i look, no one seems to be able to provide a viable solution to the willing ignorance of the American people. I admire the creator of these videos for being able to illuminate the problem with such clearity, but i wish that a solution coutld be come by just as easily.
RCMEE,
No, logic classes are not required in college. Use of logical argumentation is not required in college, either, in many (if not most) majors. What in the world made you think otherwise? Please, tell us on what you base your point that “logic [is] required in college.”
Nobody said that this symbolic exercise is a 100% accurate analogy; it is to provoke thought on the subject.
And btw, your logic is flawed: to make the two situations analogous, you would have to give students the opportunity to make higher than a 4.0 GPA. You would give them no additional benefit for doing so, all the while redistributing the results of their hard work, their extra points, to others with lower GPAs and those who didn’t work as hard.
To be directly analogous to the current tax code, the top 1-2% of GPA earners would have to contribute approximately 30-40% of the total GPA points into the communal system, while the foolish party-animals could keep partying on while being given free points, thereby never being encouraged to start acting responsibly.
So your logic is flawed by offering an even more flawed analogy.
Taxation is necessary, but in the way of all things, it has become corrupted and used toward ends for which it is not necessary and for which it was not originally created.
wnielsen1
I think this is a brilliant solution for redistribution of wealth. Those students who have, say, a 4.0 gpa can give,say, 1 point to a student with a 2.0 gpa, giving them both a 3.0 and thereby automatically raising the odds of the 2.0 gpa student to get a higher paying job and solving at least some students’ problems of getting stuck in a low paying job!
RCMEE
I say let’s run with the analogy. Let’s not raise taxes on the rich, but put a cap on net worth. (I mean since GPA can’t go higher than 4.0 and all)
I thought logic was required in college.
Ben Murphy
RCMEE,
No, logic classes are not required in college (although they may be required in a small number of majors, that doesn’t mean ‘logic is required in college.’). Use of logical argumentation is not required in college, either, in many (if not most) majors. What in the world made you think otherwise? Please, tell us on what you base your point that “logic [is] required in college.”
Nobody said that this symbolic exercise is a 100% accurate analogy; it is to provoke thought on the subject.
And btw, your logic is flawed: to make the two situations analogous, you would have to give students the opportunity to make higher than a 4.0 GPA. You would give them no additional benefit for doing so, all the while redistributing the results of their hard work, their extra points, to others with lower GPAs and those who didn’t work as hard.
To be directly analogous to the current tax code, the top 1-2% of GPA earners would have to contribute approximately 30-40% of the total GPA points into the communal system, while the foolish party-animals could keep partying on while being given free points, thereby never being encouraged to start acting responsibly.
So your logic is flawed by offering an even more flawed analogy.
Taxation is necessary, but in the way of all things, it has become corrupted and used toward ends for which it is not necessary and for which it was not originally created.
RCMEE
- The point of an analogy is to be as accurate as possible. If it’s not accurate it fails to make it’s point.
-I don’t understand the ‘no additional benefit for doing so’ part. Having more money, or a higher GPA IS the benefit.
-Yes the top 1-2% of GPA earners would probably contribute 40% of the GPA points, but they’d probably also control 90% of the total GPA points in existence.
-I assume the party animals are analogous to the people who cheat or mooch indefinitely off the system. Sadly cheaters exist in every population, we just have to do the best we can to weed them out.
-Thank you for acknowledging the flaw in the students analogy. That’s better than most of the commenters here.
Roger Ramjet
A couple of the interviewees respond that the comparison is not equal. I say that it is MORE appropriate to redistribute grades. If the Gov’t takes a rich guys money to redistribute, that money is gone and he must either go without it or try to earn it back through working harder. If a 4.0 GPA kid redistributes 0.5 or 1.0 of his GPA, it’s just a number on the other kids certificate, but the 4.0 kid has not lost any of his intelligence, he’s just as smart as he was before, just not on paper.
BigRmv
Extra points to GeniousIQ for writing, “What Obama “said” is irrelevant.”
Amen. Truer words were never posted by one of the Left.
Pingback: The Nonviolent Communist
Pingback: Students not eager to redistribute GPA scores | Random Stranger
Pingback: Redistributing grades? « the quant life