Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A California college student is conducting a social experiment where he’s trying to get his peers to sign a petition in favor of distributing grade point averages to show how the federal government distributes wealth.

In a video posted on Exposingleftists.com, one student said, “If I do give GPA points to students that don’t deserve it, it isn’t fair, I work for what I have.”

Skjellyfetti wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_on_a_curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... GPA_curves" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DJH wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_on_a_curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... GPA_curves" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you trying to make a point that pertains to my post? Because I'm not seeing one.

DJH wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_on_a_curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... GPA_curves" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you trying to make a point that pertains to my post? Because I'm not seeing one.

biobengal wrote:

DJH wrote:
Are you trying to make a point that pertains to my post? Because I'm not seeing one.

Moot point, IMO. There's no reasonable comparison between a progressive tax code and and GPA.

This little weasel is just out for a little face time.

LeadBolt wrote:I disagree. GPA, like income is determined by heredity, ability, application and environment. In both instances people are being asked to give up some of what they have earned to help others.

biobengal wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:I disagree. GPA, like income is determined by heredity, ability, application and environment. In both instances people are being asked to give up some of what they have earned to help others.

Disagree all you want, you're wrong.

GPA is a non-transferrable, permanent record of achievement. Take away GPA points and you graduate with a permanantly lowered GPA with all the ramifications that this would impart for future income, internship opportunities and job prospects. Comparing the fluid dynamics of income with GPA is absurd, as was the supposed "study"... a page out of the O'Keefe-Breitbart playbook.

LeadBolt wrote:

biobengal wrote:
Disagree all you want, you're wrong.

GPA is a non-transferrable, permanent record of achievement. Take away GPA points and you graduate with a permanantly lowered GPA with all the ramifications that this would impart for future income, internship opportunities and job prospects. Comparing the fluid dynamics of income with GPA is absurd, as was the supposed "study"... a page out of the O'Keefe-Breitbart playbook.

We will have to disagree as you are entitled to your fallacious opinion. Lowering actual income is less hypothetical than lowering potential income. Both GPA and income are a function of achievement. Have a great weekend.

Disagree all you want, you're wrong.

GPA is a non-transferrable, permanent record of achievement. Take away GPA points and you graduate with a permanantly lowered GPA with all the ramifications that this would impart for future income, internship opportunities and job prospects. Comparing the fluid dynamics of income with GPA is absurd, as was the supposed "study"... a page out of the O'Keefe-Breitbart playbook.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Disagree all you want, you're wrong.

GPA is a non-transferrable, permanent record of achievement. Take away GPA points and you graduate with a permanantly lowered GPA with all the ramifications that this would impart for future income, internship opportunities and job prospects. Comparing the fluid dynamics of income with GPA is absurd, as was the supposed "study"... a page out of the O'Keefe-Breitbart playbook.

As with most and maybe all analogies there are differences as well as similarities. The fact that a lower GPA is permanent while income at any given time is not does not mean there is no basis for an analogy.

I don't think the analogy bears upon progressive tax per se, though. I think it bears upon re-distribution. One person earns something and is asked to "share" some of it with someone who earned a lower score. Sometimes people don't earn the income they get. But most of the time, I think, they do.

Come now, there is no comparison. It was a made for Fox News gotcha moment filmed by a self rightous Breitbart protege.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Come now, there is no comparison. It was a made for Fox News gotcha moment filmed by a self rightous Breitbart protege.

Sure there is a comparison. It's the general question: "Are you willing to diminish what you earned in order to give someone else what they did NOT earn?"

It is. One can say it's not all they want but that is the underlying question. And there is some of that in our system. To a certain extent our system confiscates what some earned in order to distribute it to those who did not earn it.

Who posed the question doesn't really matter.

DJH wrote: Still trying to figure out what Jelly's point was bringing up curved grading. What exactly does that have to do with this?

The process generally works within each class, where the instructor grades the work, and then ranks the initial grades, adding to and subtracting from the initial grades so that the overall pattern of grades matches the school's specified curve

Skjellyfetti wrote:

DJH wrote: Still trying to figure out what Jelly's point was bringing up curved grading. What exactly does that have to do with this?

Really not that hard. It's grade redistribution instead of wealth redistribution.

The process generally works within each class, where the instructor grades the work, and then ranks the initial grades, adding to and subtracting from the initial grades so that the overall pattern of grades matches the school's specified curve

AZGrizFan wrote: Grading on a curve is more a testament to the instructors inability to teach than the students inability to learn.

OSBF wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Grading on a curve is more a testament to the instructors inability to teach than the students inability to learn.

Not true at all. I had an organic chem class, taught by the dept head, that was BRUTAL. Class was filled with biology, chemistry, and pre-med students. I got a 35% when it was all said and done. Good for a solid A-.

The material was brutal and the instructor was equally brutal. Guy would staple drop slips to your tests when he handed them back. Brutal. Most difficult course I ever had.

AZGrizFan wrote:

OSBF wrote:
Not true at all. I had an organic chem class, taught by the dept head, that was BRUTAL. Class was filled with biology, chemistry, and pre-med students. I got a 35% when it was all said and done. Good for a solid A-.

The material was brutal and the instructor was equally brutal. Guy would staple drop slips to your tests when he handed them back. Brutal. Most difficult course I ever had.

You just made my point. 35% is not "A' knowledge. Period. But they get by their inability to teach the material by reducing the requirement to obtain an "A".

DJH wrote:Grading on a curve has nothing to do with redistribution of earned grades.

The process generally works within each class, where the instructor grades the work, and then ranks the initial grades, adding to and subtracting from the initial grades so that the overall pattern of grades matches the school's specified curve

AZGrizFan wrote:

OSBF wrote:
Not true at all. I had an organic chem class, taught by the dept head, that was BRUTAL. Class was filled with biology, chemistry, and pre-med students. I got a 35% when it was all said and done. Good for a solid A-.

The material was brutal and the instructor was equally brutal. Guy would staple drop slips to your tests when he handed them back. Brutal. Most difficult course I ever had.

You just made my point. 35% is not "A' knowledge. Period. But they get by their inability to teach the material by reducing the requirement to obtain an "A".

OSBF wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
You just made my point. 35% is not "A' knowledge. Period. But they get by their inability to teach the material by reducing the requirement to obtain an "A".

BS

At the 200-300 level in college it is not the instructors job to "teach"
Their job is to present the material, period. It is the responsibility of the student to "learn".

If your degree was from an institution of higher education instead of K-Mart you would understand that.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Really not that hard. It's grade redistribution instead of wealth redistribution.

Grading on a curve is more a testament to the instructors inability to teach than the students inability to learn.

JMU DJ wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Grading on a curve is more a testament to the instructors inability to teach than the students inability to learn.

Come on now, do you really believe that? When's the last time you hung around a collegiate atmosphere Z? The average kid at University now a days is more concerned about the happy hour special that evening or the party/football game they're going to that weekend than they are with getting their school work done. The average teacher teaches because that's what they love to do, the average student is there because they have to be there and will do their best to do the minimal amount of work they can and also will be there as little as they possibly can be (which is why teachers now have attendance policies, because you're child doesn't think they need to come to class to learn... hope you enjoyed the 10-40K a year you shelled out for them to not go to class). Just because your child is a lazy wretch who only chose to do the work when they realized that they were failing, doesn't make it the teachers fault.... then the "my child walks on water" parents call and ask why you're failing their heir to the throne.

Besides, most departments use a bell curve, meaning that most students will end up with B's or C's. A's and other grades are limited. If the course you are taking is part of your major requirement and you end up with a C, you have failed and must retake the course. Generally, when the student realizes that they are not going to get above a C, they drop the course and retake it the next semester, usually with the same professor. The bell curve does not necessarily mean people are getting better grades than they should have, sometimes it means that someone who might normally have an A on a standard grading scale, gets a B instead. It's arcane IMO.


I've already got a kid in one of my classes (mind you, I've only had one day of class so far this semester) who already has a 93% for his final grade, just because he didn't show up to class. He thought: "it's the first week, it won't matter." Tough shit n00b. Is it my fault if he doesn't get an A now? Am I a bad teacher because the department requires that I apply a blanket curve at the end of the semester?