College Students Favoring Wealth Distribution Are Asked.....

Post Reply New Topic

The analogy has no merit, whatsoever, and fails on a number of analytical fronts.


1) Grades aren't fungible. A 3.7 in Physics 1000 is not interchangable with a 3.7 in English 3000. But the $3000 on my paycheque is entirely interchangable with the $3000 in my savings account.
2) Grades aren't a medium of exchange.
3) The analogy creates no reciprocal benefit for the transferor. A transfer of grades to a lower performing student does not bring with it any of the public goods that are inherent in universal programs.

A system of public education that is compulsory and free at the point of delivery for all students benefits the entire economy
A system of universal health insurance benefits the entire economy
A system of laws and enforcement benefits the entire economy
Even a system of welfare benefits an entire economy, because every dollar that a person receives in welfare is a dollar that the person does not have to find from an alternative source in order to secure food, shelter and the other necessities of life. It is no surprise that property crime increases when barriers to access to welfare are erected. It is no suprise that membership in gangs increases when employment is not available.

These are all things that must be paid for, and the cost of these things must be distributed.

That was simply a demonstration of this idea's status as an old right-wingers meme.


The redistribution of averaging students' grades is a zero-sum game which unambiguously harms one of them, where the higher-GPA student has no potential benefit or reason for supporting the program. That is not the case in most social programs, and it certainly is not the case for government spending in general. If you don't understand that, well then I'm sorry you're 2500 years behind on political theory. The wealthiest among us have the greatest interest in keeping a functional government and a stable society, since they have the most to lose when everything goes to hell.


All analogies are flawed, but the one presented in the OP is BS. The one I presented is a bit closer. You defended the ridiculous analogy in the OP, and want to jump on this one?


Well, a student's only real resources are their time and knowledge, so compelling them to give of those to others is the closest equivalent to taxation. And tutoring would be more akin to social programs in that it (in principle, though not always in practice) gives the worse-off a better chance to compete in the same way with everyone else.


And this is the same attitude people generally have toward social programs- if it's going to some bum who wants to leach off the system, they are opposed, but if it's someone who has had a bad break or just needs a help to get them started, they are all in favor. Further demonstrating that my analogy is better.

Redistributing the Grades is not Pareto Optimal. Boo Hiss!

ruveyn

Care to provide any evidence for this, or is a racial tangent the only thing you have?


In the strict sense, no, since people come into college with different abilities which depend on their intrinsic aptitude and the advantages they may or may not have received before arriving. But in any given class, your grade is determined only by how well you perform. It is as meritocratic a system as you can get.


Yes. I grew up in an upper-middle-class town. The public school system there was one of the better ones in the state, and my parents had the resources to ensure I had access to additional educational opportunities. Consequently, I am now on a full-ride scholarship at a prestigious top-tier university (and I turned down even more prestigious universities, including Ivy League and Russell Group institutions). When I graduate, I will have many more opportunities available to me. It would be quite easy to cash in with a high-paying job. The town immediately to the north of my home was dirt poor. No one from that school- no one- has the same chances I had. The best any of them could hope for was getting into a community college or one of the big, impersonal state schools. People in that town are not any less intelligent than those where I grew up. Probably there are a couple people there smarter than me, but we will never know it. They were born poor, and they will remain poor or at best middle-class for the rest of their lives. My roommate sophomore year was an idiot- he managed to fail the lowest econ course offered. As soon as he graduates, a family friend is simply handing over ownership of a company to him. He wears a watch with a financial value exceeding that of all my material possessions combined. He was born rich, and he will remain rich his entire life without ever earning a damn cent of it. Even if we say that this is the exception rather than the rule (and that is debatable), it is something that does not happen with college GPA. That's why Bush had a C average and McCain was at the bottom of his class.


So? I made no reference to race. I know there are poor whites. They get screwed over just as much as poor blacks. Does that somehow make it better?


Not really. You generally have to, at the very least, have a favorable start from a comfortably middle-to-upper-middle class family to have a reasonable chance at breaking into the wealthy. Horatio Alger is a myth. Even Bill Gates, one of the most commonly cited examples of the self-made man, had plenty of advantages. He grew up in a well-off family, attended a fancy private school, and was fortunate enough to be one of the first people with ready access to computers. If you're born in the slums, there is very little way out.


It really doesn't.


And I haven't said any of those things. Thanks for the straw man though. Same for the rest of your rambling nonsense, which I won't even bother replying to.

Well that is not really accurate....redistributing grades and redistributing wealth are different things.......also not everyone with a lot of wealth nessisarly earned it they way one earns their grade. Also a lot of grading is on a curve anyways(not sure quite how to explain how that works).

Well could it be that most people don't exactly have 47,000 dollars sitting around......that is why I would object because I do not have that much money and I've never even seen that much money at one time(so its not like I earn that sort of money). You can't really take from someone what they do not have.

But grades aren't wealth...grades are a representation of your skills, talents, work ect......wealth a lot of times is not. If it where then all those people working their asses off but still not making enough income to support themselves and their families without 'aid' would be wealthy.

I think this is the first really good argument against the OP's analogy.


I defended the OP analogy against weak attacks, yes. It is better than you give it credit for. I presented arguments against your counter-analogy to demonstrate that it wasn't perfect either.

Yours is more analogous to required community service.


Your analogy is good at doing what it was designed to do -- indicate the general thought process of a liberal. The original analogy is good at what it was designed to do -- indicate the general thought process of a conservative.

Neither is perfect or deserving of being taken literally.

It's a lot more meritocratic than the economy but not entirely. It isn't an entirely level playing field and the places where it is not level are (ironically for this thread) economic.

Using myself as a minor example: I was employed all the way through college. I worked part time (never under 20 hours, the absolute minimum needed to keep myself in genteel student poverty) and I took a full course load. I studied as hard as I could but there was always 20 hours (plus commute time) gouged out of my study allotment so that I could work. I got middling grades. They weren't as bad as they would have been if I was a partier. But they weren't as good as they would have been if I didn't have to work part time all the time. My grades were often better than the wealthier kids who partied so much because they didn't have to get up for work. But they were worse than the wealthy and studious kids who didn't have to work and put that time to good use studying.

Organic Chemistry was a particularly tough class. It was also my bad luck that the work available when I took it was night shift. I could have delayed taking it until I could get day shift work (as I eventually did) but I needed it as a prerequisite to other classes. So I went to my 8:00 Organic Chemistry class after not having slept the night before- ever- for the whole semester. It is a sheer wonder that I made a C. I think I could have made a B if the playing field was sufficiently level that I didn't have to also hold that night shift job unlike so many of my classmates.

Another place where the playing field is not level is where somebody went to K-12. That didn't affect me, since I went to a good public school. (My parents followed the wise advice to "buy the worst house in the best school district" in order to get your kid educated somewhat above your means.) But other kids- probably some of the others slogging along in part time jobs or getting financial hardship scholarships- are "studying uphill". If they went to Crappola P.S.141 and then got a scholarship for financial hardship because they were the best student there, they are still miles behind the kids who went to Superstar Prep private school. And that disadvantage is economic.

You said yourself earlier that you are on full scholarship. You didn't say the nature of this scholarship so you may in fact be one of those kids from Crapploa P.S. 141* who got a scholarship for being at the top of that class. You are thriving. You are also clearly brilliant (so maybe it was an academic scholarship) which opens a whole other Pandora's Box of uneveness. Brilliance isn't actually a form of work. It's as much an accident of birth as being born to old money. But I've seen brilliant people who barely did homework (in my Organic Chemistry class!! !!) and still aced the tests because they were brilliant. Is that rising on merit? I also saw brilliant people working their butts off and those people went far indeed. They are probably at the top of some research totem pole now, and that's merit. But brilliant people sometimes forget that their brilliance is genetic and no more earned than Chip Whitebread's trust fund.

*And now that I read the post you wrote while I wrote this I can see you didn't go to Crappola school and are well aware of the points where GPA is coupled to money.

I feel like this post was a twisted way to try and claim people on the 'left' or with any socialist veiws...are hypocrites who when asked to actually put their views in practice, will refuse because they are only ok with it if it's not their wealth.

I have no issue at all with things like taxes, and its not just because I don't currently have a taxable income, it is because I am fine with a percentage of my money going to public services for instance. With grades they are an exact indicator of my work, skills, knowledge and acheivement so of course I would not be willing to give that hard earned grade to someone else.......but money is money it does not prove ones value or lack of value it is simply a currency you need in order to buy things.

I find it to be quite immature, as I am not a hypocrite...and I am not ok with stealing. I do not have the well if its my wealth I want it all for myself and hate taxes.....but I am ok with it if its other peoples wealth, I am actually ok with it if it's my wealth.

Isn't it funny that the only real reason the merit of grades suffers is because of the economy? This is one of the reasons I wholeheartedly support socialist programs to level the playing field. As long as there is opportunity and fluidity between the social classes, I agree to them.

What is sad is that I share your grief. I work two part time jobs while going to school full time.

I have to agree with one of the final statements made by the above individual. Not only can wealth be inherited but so are genetics which contribute to health, intelligence and athletic ability. I inherited great genes for intelligence, am I in the same category as Paris Hilton due to her coming from inherited wealth? Do you think that the children of Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong or the average NBA/NFL star are likely to have an athletic advantage over my kids? I got crappy genetics for health; does that make me equal to someone born in abject poverty? We all have advantages and disadvantages that provide us specific benefits or difficulties. Some of these difficulties do affect academics so I think the analogy is acceptable, not ideal. Perhaps a redistribution of friends would be more ideal? This debate like so many has degenerated into the typical left/right BS that is completely idiotic. Breaking the entire world of debate political, moral, ethical, economic and so on into some false dichotomy only shows how eager people are to simplify complex issues in an effort to make them easier to resolve.

"Oh I see that you said something about being pro-abortion. Obviously you are a Godless, liberal pinky scum bag that wants to steal my guns, sterilize my wife and send me off to a reeducation camp only after taxing me into poverty. Meanwhile you'll be letting in illegal aliens, supplying drugs and condoms to school kids and destroying the military. Oh, for you tofu vegetarian dinner you'll sell the country out to the Muslim Jihadists that want to kill us all. Praise the Lord!"

"Oh I see that you are pro 2nd amendment, you are obviously an idiot that can't tie their own shoes. I'll use small words to talk to you as your pro business, Nazi, minority and woman hating self will not understand anything with more than 2 syllables. You must want to force everyone to worship your God on a stick, eat meat, abstain from sex and hate all people unlike themselves. Please quit trying to starve the unfortunate, deny granny her meds and force people back into slavery. No I don't want to be barefoot and pregnant in your kitchen. Now get me a latte. "

Grow up folks. Some people can debate an issue and meet in the middle somewhere, come up with their own ideas and feel no need to be pigeon holed into one of these two black and white, red and blue, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative false choices.

Isn't it funny how those with little or no income of their own feel that they should be entitled to the income of those who make more?

Actually, no ... it isn't ... it's not funny at all ...

And this has jack s**t to do with why the analogy is a massive false equivalency.

Is this dude the third generation of his family's wealth? If so don't worry about him remaining rich for the rest of his life. He's probably known nothing but prosperity and lays down at the first sign of adversity so his sense of entitlement should blow up in his face somewhere down the road.

Who died and made your opinions so important that I should consider them valid?

I went into college straight out of high school, and promptly flunked out. It was a lack of effort, not a lack of intelligence. My parents would have paid my way through college entirely.

I ended up joining the military, and stayed in for 10 years. When I got out, I had both GI Bill and significant savings to draw on, with which I can pay my own way through college. I am now going through college with a good GPA.

Anyone who is able to join the military could have taken advantage of that opportunity, even though not everyone has parents who can pay their way.


Hopefully he'll be smart enough to let someone else actually run the company.


BS.

One of my bosses in the military was offered a choice between joining the military and going to prison, because he had shot someone (not fatally). He was one of the most respected guys at that command.

More than one person in the military remarked that all of their old friends were either dead or in jail, and that they would be too, if they hadn't left.

The military doesn't care if you came from a run down slum or a nice quiet small town.