.
.
.
Noting that the spread between the best and worst students reached historic highs in 2010, the Regents of the University of California have adopted a ground breaking grade redistribution program. Under this program, those with an overabundance of credits or with GPAs above 3.5 will see up to 38% of their credits or GPA shifted to those students with GPAs under 2.0 or who would not graduate within five years. The adoption of the program drew immediate praise from fraternities and sororities throughout the country. “There are some really selfish folks out there that think that hard work and talent justifies hording the majority of the good grades. That is not how this country was built,” commented Delta Umlaut Malta Beta National President Chuck Slimmons.
“We have come to learn that the top grades are being hoarded by fewer and fewer students,” remarked Regent Frederick Von Bestenberg. “Failure to act would have allowed this unprecendented selfishness to continue. These students simply have to ask themselves – when is enough enough?”
“This is the bestest day ever,” shouted a beer soaked Anthony Bruschi. “I could never figure out how I could keep my party on and still graduate – now they have taken care of that for me!!” Mr. Bruschi turned serious for a minute, “do you realize that only 3% of the students were pulling down 30% of the A’s – that’s just wrong.”
The reaction to the measure was not universally applauded. Upcoming UCLA grad Alfred Abaluhya was stunned, “I worked so hard to get into Harvard graduate school and now I have to put that off at least a year – if I can ever get back at all.” Mr. Abaluhya was dubbed a “serious offender” under the Regents new policy when, as a first generation immigrant from Kenya he had compiled sufficient credits to graduate in only 3 1/2 years and had compiled a perfect 4.0 GPA. “They sent me a letter that said I was greedy and needed to “give back” 37% of what I have earned – do you know how hard I worked for that?”
Exactly! But I am sure they won’t see any humor in it . . .
They’ll justify it somehow, I’m sure. America, the land of the mediocre and substandard. That’s what the liberals/socialist/marxists want. See, even subprime loans, they demanded and intimidated banks crying foul play of the underprivileged (darn I say it) black poor.
Geoff,
Hilarious, but what’s even more hilarious is your not attributing this “joke” to its source, leading OJ readers to believe that you were the oh so clever, creator of this knee-slapper.
” Earlier this month University of California-Merced College Republicans asked fellow students in favor of wealth redistribution through taxes if they would also favor grade redistribution.” April 2011
Anonster – this was satire – every word here is original. Yes, it features the same theme as the student video – using your concept of “creation” Bethany Hamilton of “Soul Surfer” should credit Stephen Spielburg and “Jaws.”
Geoff,
Yeah this had nothing to do with the other “similiar” posts making the rounds on the right-wing blogosphere yesterday.
For example;
Wealth redistribution? Then why not grade redistribution?
May 1st, 2011, 6:00 pm · Post a Comment · posted by Thomas J. Lucente Jr.
I received the below joke from a good friend a few weeks ago. Then, this week, Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, posted the above video with his comments on his blog on the same topic as the below joke so I decided to share them both.
Both show that liberals simply do not fully consider their positions. Their belief system is often inconsistent, which shows the weakness of their positions.
The video was created by the University of California at Merced Republicans. According to the notes attached to the video:
Many students believe that it is moral to confiscate money from hard-working Americans and entrepreneurs and give it to those who didn’t earn it, yet don’t support the same philosophy when it is applied to their GPA scores.
I apologize for the quality of the video’s audio in spots. I guess all the A/V students are Democrats!
Here is the joke:
Father and Daughter
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the conservative side of the fence.”
Share and Enjoy:
OK OK, since Geoff insists this post deserves to be up at the top in the top-10 java-moving-photo list at the top of our blog…
OH! – BIG important celebratory aside – everybody thank our hardworking and resourceful Travis Kiger from the Fullerton freaks, for magically making our front page work again – including those photos!
OK. Like I was saying, I didn’t think this post was top-of-the-page material, but Geoff insisted, so we will have to take seriously what he is saying here with his satire, which I take for granted he composed with his own turns-of-phrase and wisecracks even if it is the joke-of-the-week in the wingnutosphere. (BTW good touch making the hardworking overachieving student a Kenyan national – I wasn’t expecting that.)
Geoff and his likeminded cohorts across the land are saying that the distribution of wealth is just as merit-based and work-based as academic grades are. What do you all think about that idea?
He’s saying that even if you’re born poor and with no opportunities, the only reason you can end up poor is by not working hard enough, like the failing student. Is that true?
He’s also saying that if you inherit your wealth like Trump or Paris Hilton, you are just like an A student who worked hard and did all their homework. Is that true?
How else does this whole thing fall flat? I’m sure there are more ways.
First or second most hits of the day. You are right, it didn’t deserve a place in the photo rotation.
These kind of shallow parables must be some sort of aphrodisiac for right-wingers as they seem to really get off on them.
Comparing progressive taxation to “giving up your grades” is like comparing apples and horses, it doesn’t make any sense.
Perhaps if you asked students whether they’d be willing to give up a few points on their GPA if it meant that children wouldn’t go hungry or that old people could get medical care or that the food supply was safe, then maybe you’d have an apples to oranges comparison, but as it stands, this “parable” is just mental masturbation.
Shallow parable. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
Well, if good students gave up some of their GPA, then students with lower grades would have better GPAs, which would lead to better job opportunities, which would lead to higher wages, which means that their children wouldn’t go hungry and they could provide for their elderly relatives. Sounds like a good comparison to me.
Newbie,
I hope your ‘enjoying’ yourself.
I enjoy destroying your argument while you apparently have some odd fixation with self-gratification.
Newbie,
You “destroyed” my argument?
If this country were to follow the conservative doctrine to it’s ultimate conclusion, there wouldn’t be ANY public schools to redistribute grades.
Maybe you and Geoff should contemplate how the UC’s were built in the first place.
Well, since we advocate following what a constitution says, and since public education is required by California’s constitution, I’m pretty sure that following the “conservative doctrine” to its ultimate conclusion would mean we would still have public schools in California. Unless a group is able to amend the California constitution through the difficult process, in which case it would no longer be part of the constitution. Of course, we could just do it the liberal way and ignore the constitution and find some activist judge to rule that something should be in the constitution even though it isn’t, but I prefer the “right” way.
Here’s a question out of left field for you Anonster – would you support a taxpayer’s right to specifically designate where his/her/its tax money goes? In other words, I would be allowed to say 50% of my taxes must go to defense and 50% must go to infrastructure. If not, why not?
Newbie,
Think about all the EXTRA BUREAUCRATS we would need to carry out your “plan”, oh my god, the pensions alone would break us!
Seriously, do you even THINK before you post?
Yeah, allocating funds on tax returns would take a huge number of bureaucrats. After all, data entry is so difficult. And way to ignore the question altogether, proving you don’t care about the issues, you just like to be difficult.
Anonster and Vern – I find most of your “arguments” largely rhetorical and not worth a response but evidently you think you are actually asking questions so I will respond:
1) There is nothing in anything I have written that says that public education should not be strongly supported.
2) If this is such a “shallow parable” why have you spent so much time and effort attacking it. I think that this argument resonates and that the parable is effective.
3) “We” don’t “ask” anyone whether they want to feed starving families, keep the food supply safe or provide any particular level of medical care. The government sets tax rates and unilaterally determines how those taxes (and more, more, more) is spent. If we had a fraud resistent way of distributing those taxes to truly cover the issues you are talking about, I think few people would have a problem with that.
4) You, not I, say that if you are born poor you have no opportunities. That is nonsensical. My family was below the poverty line when I was born and I certainly do not feel like I was deprived of opportunity. The “American Dream” is based on the FACT that everyone can make something of themself in America. It takes a combination of hard work, talent and frankly some luck.
5) You, not I, confuse “high income earner” with wealthy – they are not the same thing. Living in South Orange County I am surrounded by folks that inherited their wealth rather than earned it. As a group I do not know of a less happy, disgruntled and frustrated group. I really think an inheritance is a curse not a blessing as a general rule.
The fallacy of this analogy is that it implies that (like grades), people start life with an equal amount of money. When we start college, we all have a 0.0 GPA. When we start life, however, there is no similar equality. It may be debatable to what degree social class or family wealth actually influence individual achievement, but regardless the analogy itself is incorrect – unless we assume everyone starts life with 0.0 or a similar level of equity.
We do not start college with an even footing. I attended public school and was largely self educated and had to compete with kids that had attended the best boarding schools of the East coast. I had to work my butt off to try and catch up. I couldn’t afford private tutors and had tondo it on my own. I certainly didn’t have it as bad as some kids that had the same education I did but did not have parents that encouraged education like mine did. I think the analogy is a good one and I think the howls of protest and belittling is because the wealth redistributes recognize it’s truth.
Read it again. I did not say we start college with an equal footing. You conflate concepts without paying much attention to their specificity. I said “When we start college, we all have a 0.0 GPA.” The analogy above between grades and money assumes that grades are the product of effort. The analogy is illogical otherwise. If grades are a result of anything other than merit, then their redistribution may in fact be justified.
All right, I’ll play along with the nonsense, if were going to try and make this parable work, we need some real life factors.
(I can’t wait to see how well all this grade redistribution works out, oh that’s right, we already know, but I’ll play along anyway)
Our classroom started with 100 students, the ground rules; every time you gained a point you got extra time with the professor and every time you lost a point you were moved further to the back of the class.
Now all these students started off with zero points, but they all had different back grounds and abilities, some were naturally smart, some were not, some were well fed and physically fit, some were not, some were energetic, some were not, some had inherited the answers to all the tests, most had not, some cheated, most did not.
Well, because we already know how it all works out, I’ll just jump to the end ( as I’m already wasting way too much time);
Five or six of the lazier students and a couple of the ones who got caught cheating were put outside pretty quickly and then there were the ones who were hard working but not as bright or had physical infirmities or problems at home, they tried their hardest but pretty soon they were outside with the losers, in all about 80 of the students were sitting in the parking lot and even though they never ever saw the professor most of them continued to show up every day for class.
The next 10 students, those getting C’s, they were struggling to keep up, they were sitting all the way in the back and could barely see or hear the professor, yet they too continued to show up every day.
The B students, all 8 of them, they were doing okay, they were in the middle of the classroom and could easily both hear and see the professor, needless to say, they showed up every day.
Now the two A students, they not only sat in front of the class, but also got special tutoring sessions, heck they didn’t even need to show up to class as they were living in the professor’s house.
So that’s how it ended up, but wait you say, where was the grade redistribution?
Oh, I guess I forgot to mention that about 30 years ago the university decided to embrace the “trickle down” theory, also known as magical thinking.
This is where you allow the A students to keep all their points, which somehow generates more points and then, and this is where the “magic” comes in, those newly generated points, magically float down on all the other students.
Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way and the university is in disrepair and most of the students are woefully ignorant due to the lack of instruction.
And the A students, they are in the process of gathering up all their points and transferring to Beijing U.
Don’t believe me?
For income inequality FACTS;
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
I don’t know what fantasy school you’re referencing but I seriously doubt that 80% of college students are getting Ds or worse. Of course, that wouldn’t support your point so I understand how you would have to make up facts to reach a made up conclusion.
OK Newbie, you are totally not understanding Anonster’s counter-parable.
Geoff started by imagining a dystopian school that is run the way (you folks worry that) we run or want to run our economy.
Anonster responded by painting a picture of an even more dystopian school that is run like our economy actually works. With its “savage inequalities.”
Quick tip: Nobody here is actually talking about a REAL ACTUAL SCHOOL. Oh. Except for Red and WW. But not Geoff or Anonster. Wow, this parable game IS tricky.
Except in Geoff’s “parable” there were no made up facts – simply a request for better performing students to give a portion of their GPA to lower performing students. It was a simple effort by conservatives to expose the hypocrisy of liberal college students who felt they should not share their grades since they worked hard for them, yet it is ok to say that the government should be able to force the rich (whoever that is) to share their wealth that they worked for (I know there are trust fund babies out there, but there are exceptions to every rule) simply because some in government think it’s the right thing to do. Anonster’s parable only works by making up totally unrealistic (remember, she said “we need some real life factors”) scenario simply to provide some fantasy counter point. The libs on here can try to pick the scenario apart all they want, but they continue to ignore the basic point.
Well, I don’t feel I can explain it any better. They were both fictional, and both created to make a point about how Geoff and anonster see the economic realities around them.
sigh…except the analogy doesn’t work at all. Grades are given, usually impartially, by teachers for work that satisfies pre-determined curriculum. There is also a wealth of ways to actually get good grades that are very easy, like reading a book, a study group, or have a friend tutor you. Unless you are unfortunate enough to live in a very very bad area, you can at least get good grades (education is a different matter though).
Unfortunately, money is not distributed impartially. There are no simple steps to make money….businesses and such fail for a variety of reasons, sometimes not within the owners control or with no warning. Not to mention that an employers goal is to make money, not give money to employees. A teachers goal is to educated and give grades, not keep good grades for themselves.
Further, unlike students who all start the class with a clean slate, not all people start life with a clean slate, depending on where they are born or what their home life is like. Money also is distributed by business and employers, who often have their own motives as you go higher up the financial food chain. An “F” class contractor could never ever get a big project based solely on their work, but they could if they had the right connections. An F student, though, maybe end up with a C if they studied very hard and did work, even if previous work was terrible. Connections for grades? Not so much. Connections for jobs/work? All the time.
Also, If I have a lot of money, I can invest it and actually make more money. But, if I have good grades, that doesn’t “make good grades” for me. It just means I did good work.
IF you can get a job, some of which are 40-60 hours a week, it may pay only a pittance…a “D” for “A” level labor. No one is willing to help you. In school, there often resources if you ask or look. Resources for people looking for a job? Its called welfare, its being cut, and could use some fixing. Meanwhile, there are people pushing imaginary 1s, 0s and wealth on a computer screen and losing peoples money for it. They are getting the “A” income for “F” level work. Certainly I never got an A for a poorly conceived project that ultimately failed.
So while I am sure this is amusing to conservatives who are unable to think of complex problems in complex terms, but prefer to just dumb them down into simple analogies, its not a very good analogy, and is actually amusing to me because it just shows how tone deaf they really are.
A better analogy would be with actual education and not just GPA. “Susie, you have 3.5 GPA and Jeff has a 2.5 GPA. Do you think it would be fair if the school required you to tutor him? After all, he appears to be having difficulty with classes and you don’t.
I think this would be very fair. I had a 4.5 GPA in HS, a 3.8 in college, and I just graduated med school. I would love for the government to become more socialized, and I know it will be my wealth that will be redistrubited (as long as it goes to education, defense, and energy independence and not to pointless wars or bailouts of failed financial cowboys). There is no other way for the US to survive.
Unless, of course, you think large income inequality gaps is good for a society. But then, you probably never took a class in history, or you would know that was one of the markers for a terrible/collapsing nation. see: Rome, Latin America, Soviet Union, Egypt, Iran, maybe Germany.
I’ll make it more clear for you.
The republicans plan is the equivalent of cutting all tutoring resources for most students, and let all the people who have “good grades” continue to share their resources, whether they got them by studying or by other means. If you think that’s the best way to distribute education, I hope you are not a teacher.
Thank you, Red. That just seemed like so much work, finding everything wrong with this parable. It made my head hurt, and to Geoff that was proof that “it must be valid!” Come back any time.
red,
Redistributing tutors – thanks for putting those complex problems in complex terms. Otherwise I might have actually understood your post.
Same lesson as anonster, ww. and I have been trying to illustrate: That redistributing grades obviously doesn’t make sense, while to a degree redistributing wealth or opportunity can sometimes be a good idea. (As pretty much every American admits, to one degree or another.)
I.E. the original story doesn’t make as much sense as Geoff thinks it does. Except inasmuch as the ideas of redistributing grades and redistributing wealth both irritate him.
I’m seeing a pattern in Mr Willis’ stories. Monotonous variations on the “Libruls vs. Conservatives” theme. Guaranteed to excite those with myopic vision with shiny objects. Frequent tooting of your own horn when sharing your personal history. Oh, and inability to ever admit to being wrong. Great attributes for a lawyer,but you seem to want a following –groupies and acolytes. Doing any more stand up gigs? Need a drummer? Ba Dum Bump!