Tuesday, January 27, 2009

A Lesson on Wealth Redistribution.




The following piece appeared at Net Right Nation BLOG and TownHall.com. This piece is great to share with your college and high school aged children, I think it will help them to understand why spreading the wealth is a bad policy.



Cathy

My New Spread the Wealth Grading Policy
Written by Mike S. Adams

Good afternoon students! I’m writing you this email to announce that I’m making some changes in the grading policies I announced two weeks ago when I sent an email with an attached course syllabus. As you know, we now have a new president and I thought it would be nice to align our class policies with some of the policies he will be implementing over the next four years. These will be changes you can believe in and, I hope, changes that will inspire hope, which is our most important American value.



Previously, I announced that I would use a ten-point grading scale, which means that 90% of 100 is an “A,” 80% is a “B,” 70% is a “C,” and 60% is enough for a passing grade of “D.” I also announced that I will refrain from using a “plus/minus” system – even though the faculty handbook gives me that option.

The new policy I am announcing today is that those who score above 90 on the first exam will have points deducted and given to students at the bottom of the grade distribution. For example, if a student gets a 99, I will then deduct nine points and give them to the person with the lowest grade. If a person scores 95 I will then deduct five points and give them to the person with the second lowest grade. If someone scores 93 I will then deduct three points and give them to the next lowest person. And so on.

My point, rather obviously, is that any points above 90 are really not needed since you have an “A” regardless of whether you score 90 or 99. Nor am I convinced that you need to “save” those points for a rainy day. Those who are failing, however, need the points – not unlike the failing banks and automakers that need money to avoid the danger of bankruptcy.

After our second examination, I intend to take a more complex approach to the practice of grade redistribution. I will not be looking at your second test scores but, instead, at the average of your first two test scores. In the process, I may well decide to start taking some points from students in the “B” range. For example, if someone has an average of 85 after two tests I may take a few points and give them away to someone who is failing or who is in danger of failing. I think this is fair because the person with an 85 average is probably unlikely to climb up to an “A” or fall down to a “C.” I may be wrong in some individual cases but, of course, my principal concern is not the individual.

By the end of the semester I will abandon any formal guidelines and just redistribute points in a way that seems just, or fair, to me. I will not rely upon any standards other than my very strong and passionate feelings concerning social justice. In the process, I will not merely seek to eliminate inequality. I will also seek to eliminate the possibility of failure.

I know some are concerned that my system may impact their lives in a very profound way. Grade redistribution will undoubtedly cause some grade point average redistribution. And this, in turn, will mean that some people will not get into the law school or medical school of their choice. Or maybe some day you will be represented by a lawyer – or operated on by a doctor – who is not of the highest quality.

These are all, of course, legitimate long-term concerns. But I believe we need to remain focused on the short term. I think my new system will immediately help the self-esteem of those failing or in danger of failing. It should also help the self-esteem of those who are not in danger of failing. After all, it just feels good to give – even if the giving is compelled and not really “giving” in the literal sense.

Finally, I want to note that this idea was also inspired by a former presidential candidate named George McGovern. In a debate with the late William F. Buckley, McGovern said that people who earn more money should pay more taxes. Buckley replied that the rich do pay more in taxes – and more as a percentage of their income. McGovern looked confused.

But I don’t think there’s anything confusing about our pending social responsibilities. Whether we are talking about income or grades it does not matter how much or what percentage we are giving. The question is and should always be “Can we give more?”

1 comment:

ReasonableCitizen said...

Did you forget to take the capitalist view? In that system, a person who makes an A has taken something from somebody else because there is a finite amount of points available (# of students times 100 points)... unless the teacher creates more. To continue making 'A's the class leaders must continue to take points from those that have less.
Sometimes the method is to 'market' the class leader's knowledge. "I will help you earn a higher grade if you give me 3 points from whatever grade you make." With the Faustian bargain made, the lower grade student fails to realize that his abilities limit his grade potential. He may not discover that the class leader is actually taking more points from him than he can receive from the tutoring. Competition allows the marginal student to purchase tutoring at a lower 'price' but the marginal student has been sold the idea that he must have more points in order to be happy. So the process continues. The class leaders compete among themselves and keep score on how many points they took from the tutoring market.That really did not require all that much effort once the market for their tutoring was established. Later, the class leaders learned how acquired points (that they did not need to make an 'A') could earn more points. They called this a 'loan' and soon had lesser students borrowing points and paying interest to obtain a passing grade. The idea was that a passing grade would earn the lesser student more knowledge points later and they could repay the loan and the interest.
Ultimately, the lesser students were in deficit spending.They paid more in points than they could possibly earn. Some of the lesser students failed and were then cast out. The class leaders thought it only appropriate and fitting that in the competition for good grades there must be winners and losers.Survival of the fittest you know.

As you can tell, I don't think highly of the analogy that taxes are like grades. I have been in business for a long time. One cannot have winners without losers and one cannot have equality for all without constraints on some. There needs to be another approach that permits failures to teach lessons and for success to breed success and to do so without casting anyone out. I choose to belive that this is possible.