"If you made 110 points on my test then you can afford to give some to the person who made 72"

[Stuckinthebush]

This was a response to my daughter from her 10th grade math teacher on why he doesn't vote Democratic.

He said he can't support a party that feels it is ok to give his hard earned money to people who don't work for theirs. He said it would be like a teacher asking a kid who made 110 on a test to give 19 points to someone else who made a 72.

My daughter told me it bothered her because it made sense. My 8th grader in the back seat said, "Wow. It does make sense."

I was ready and explained how that analogy isn't quite accurate.

I discussed income inequality,
I spoke of the import of supporting societal members to protect society as a whole,
I delved deep into the myth of the self made man/woman
I tried to dismantle the straw man of the welfare queen or king
I explained the tax code and how everyone pays the same amount at different income levels
I talked about the tax loopholes for the richest among us

But, the insidious nature of the simple analogy is that it makes sense because of its simplicity.

I would love my brilliant DU friends to help me with a simple story that puts his analogy on the ropes.

[msongs]

1. you cant buy groceries or pay the rent or doctor with "test points" nt

[closeupready]

134. Was gonna say, "test points" don't feed

hungry stomachs.

[Flabbergasted]

2. Lets say however, you did give that 10 points to the other students....

and the whole class benefited through improved scores and brought a return to the "best student" of an additional 20 points. That's actually how it works in the real world. It's what built the middle class and created 100's of millionaires to boot.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. Excellent!

I like that

[Flabbergasted]

10. Thought that's what you were aiming for. :)

[AlexSatan]

100. How would giving 10 points to other kids improve scores in the long run?

The class doesn't benefit through improved scores, especially since giving those scores away does not also distribute knowledge as well. School is about learning and scores are just meant to be a measure of the mastery of the topic.

If anything, the 72% kids would be less worried about studying for the next test because they know they have a cushion, even though it is artificial.

I'm not arguing against the concept, just this analogy. Even an 8th grader will see that artificially raising grades will not motivate students to work harder.

[Occulus]

129. You're wrong. School is about test scores. Learning is incidental.

I really do wish that was still a joke.

[AlexSatan]

140. Maybe in your classroom,

Not mine.

If the teacher is a good teacher, the scores reflect the learning.

And yes, I teach (ok, taught) to the test. Why in the world would I test something I didn't teach them? Yes, I put a twist on it they have not seen before to weed out the regurgitators, but if they did the work and understand the concepts, they will have the fundamentals and seen enough twists to know the answer.

[Flabbergasted]

137. It's a faulty analogy...

I provided an account of how progressive taxation helps everyone. I definitely was not saying anything about how test scores in school actually work or could work.

[GeorgeGist]

138. You said nothing of the sort.

[Flabbergasted]

151. Meaning progressive taxation doesn't work in this way

I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

[Mira]

142. That's perfect. n/t

[MotherPetrie]

4. Is he a public school teacher?

[Care Acutely]

44. ba-zing!

If he doesn't believe in "redistribution" his azz shouldn't be collecting a socialist paycheck and providing his precious skills to the children of the great unwashed masses.

But - that's probably different, I imagine.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. Exactly. In his case he got zero on the test and depends on the largesse of others.

In reality, the service teachers provide lift the GPA of all of society... at least most of them do.

[sammytko]

5. Not everyone is the same. And who is to say that the 72 point person can't help the 110 person in

Some way.

It's dumb.

You have to know why the 72 point person only made a 72.

And remember the old saying. Lots of A students end up working for C students.

And last but not least there that oldie but goodie " those that can, do, those that can't....

[Lightbulb_on]

143. Who cares why?

The results are the results?

[surrealAmerican]

6. The teacher here seems to misunderstand what grades are.

A grade is supposed to measure a student's understanding of the material, not be a measure of how hard they worked.


Most children know this, because they see some of their classmates getting very high grades without even trying, and some working as hard as they can just to pass.


Should a child with a very good understanding of the material fail a test because they didn't have to study? Should one who studied all week be given a 100 even though they still don't really understand the subject?

[Michigan Alum]

45. That makes sense.....

[sadbear]

7. Ask them how they would feel if no matter how hard they worked...

they were only allowed to get a 72 because they weren't allowed to know the secrets to making 90's or 100's, or they didn't know the right people who could help them get 90's or 100's. And the people who consistently got 90's and 100's rarely got them on their own. They got A LOT more help than the people making 72's.

Ask them if that's fair.

[Stuckinthebush]

9. I was working on something along these lines

That some kids get points because of who they knew not what they knew

[Ikonoklast]

115. Legacies get a "Gentlemen's 'C'" from one of the Ivies, and an MBA.

A lesser connected student works his ass off for the same C grade.

Who gets the job?

[Horse with no Name]

8. Taxes are paid for the luxury of living in a society

To pay for the roads and airports and police and fire and schools and many other things.

His money goes to pay for the privilege of living in a society and the trappings thereof.

His analogy makes as much sense as me, a nurse who probably makes more money than he does saying...."My money goes to pay worthless teachers who lie to their students about the way a society functions"....because...you got it...taxes pay for teachers!

[Stuckinthebush]

13. Ha!

Brilliant!

[Ilsa]

11. If I made a 110, I could give away 20 points

and still have an A.
Just like if I am a millionaire, and this year I made $1.5 million, I could give a lot away and still be wealthy.

[Barack_America]

12. Weak argument, particularly from a public employee.

Wonder if he ever stops to think how much his paycheck is dependent on the community surrounding him?

And I'm sure he borrowed his college tuition money from his parents and went to a private institution. Bootstraps and all, wouldn't want the community to contribute to his getting ahead in life.

[Stuckinthebush]

15. That's the maddening part

A 15 year old might see his argument as sound. But it is so simplistic and incorrect.

[Fence rider]

14. I think the answer is easy

Life is not a math test! Not everyone that makes 72 did so because they did not try. In this age of uncertainty any of us are on the precipace of needing some assistance. In life i will gladly share when i have because someday i might be the one making 72 no matter how hard i try? Would i want you to abandon me because I failed to make high enough on the test. All the rhetoric about dependancy? Am i not my brother's keeper? If we spent 3% less on guns and used that money to educate our populace maybe we can ALL score 100 on the test and the need for social welfare would decrease! Most people dont want a hand out but a hand up! The ranting republican machine makes the problem much worse because they are racist's that think they can hide it behind pictures of the small percent that are asking for hand outs. They dont say shit about military families on food stamps do they. Or the 50 year old that got laid off from a great job and now just can't find a job and have lost everything. Damn them for taking hand outs? I don't think so?

[Stuckinthebush]

17. Spot on

The image of someone on welfare is an inner city person of color trying to game the system.

Racism indeed!

[ChoppinBroccoli]

16. It's A Flawed Analogy

It implies that everyone in the world earns money commensurate with how hard they work, and that's just not the case.

A better analogy is this one: Would this 10th grade math teacher ask the same questions of 1st graders that he asks of 10th graders? Why not? And if he did, wouldn't it be more fair to grade the 1st graders on a CURVE? See, it's not the 1st graders' FAULT that they don't know as much about math as a 10th grader; their circumstances have made it that way. So why would you ask a 1st grader to answer math questions designed for a 10th grader without one hell of a curve? It's simply not fair.

And when this issue comes up, the best analogy I can come up with is the following (and I LOVE to use this one). Imagine you're moving your family into a new house. The moving van shows up, and it's packed with everything from the old house. There are boxes of all sizes, shapes, and weights, huge pieces of furniture, and tiny little knick-knacks. One by one, every member of the family comes to the back of the moving van to take something into the house. You've got a big, strapping, muscular dad, all the way down to little kids, and even a feeble, wizened Grandma type, who needs a walker to get around, but still wants to do her part.

The question is this: do you ask Grandma to lug the couch into the house, or do you hand her the smallest, lightest box you can find and give the couch to Dad? Understand before you answer that if you DON'T give the couch to Grandma, you're a Socialist. Why should the biggest, strongest, fittest member of the family be PUNISHED by having to lift the heaviest stuff? All you're doing is providing incentive for people to be feeble and weak.

[Stuckinthebush]

19. Damn good

Love it.

(I'm writing these down!)

[qazplm]

34. i think a better analogy is asking if grandma

should be expected to lift the same heavy things during moving day as dad or big brother?

Do we think it unfair that someone weaker or older doesn't move the exact same weight as someone who is stronger or younger?
Of course not, we recognize differences there, and we don't judge them.

Do we judge someone who can't afford movers and does it themselves versus someone who can afford to pay someone to move it so they don't lift anything at all? Again, no.

But somehow that same thought process doesn't seem to extend outside of that.

[Hissyspit]

56. Worse than that, it's a massively fucking stupid analogy.

[DreamGypsy]

18. So, you were graded 110 on that test...

... and <some name here> only scored 72.

What if you spend an hour next time studying with <snh>, helping her/him understand what you've learned. Maybe she/he learns something from you, maybe you also learn something, like compassion or empathy, or a different perspective on learning, that won't appear on the test. Next test you are both graded 91. Six years later, two friends graduate from the local community college, or state university, or MIT or Harvard, proud in their shared achievements. You will both have achieved a knowledge that isn't taught in school. That is what will matter in your life.

[dalaigh lllama]

20. Have two students start with 100%

Each has to give away points.
One of them gives away about 33 points and ends up with a 67%.
The other student doesn't have to give away more than 14% because...because... he/she is extra-special, so nets an 86%.
Have teacher explain why this is equitable.

[jody]

21. Try The Little Red Hen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen

"Fable The Little Red Hen from Speakaboos" at

[flying rabbit]

22. some cool answers on this thread.

[Stuckinthebush]

23. Indeed!

I love DUers

[AZ Mike]

24. Because....

Test scores are not distributive.

That is to say that if I score 110 points you can only score 90 points at the most because I have earned an additional allocation of 10 points from the scarce pool of points available to all test takers.

The economy is distributive - it can be defined with relative boundaries, scarcity, and distribution. Test scores are independent, economies are dependent. This "simple" analogy fails on that "simple" observation....

[Stuckinthebush]

36. That's the crux of the issue

They feel economies are independent

[HiPointDem]

48. +1. also, test scores aren't analogous to income. income is analogous to 'life', because in a

modern society, if you don't have income, you die.

test scores are a measurement of how much you know about some discrete subject.

if you exist within a society that doesn't produce enough jobs for everyone to have one; that doesn't produce income-generating jobs suitable for disabled people; that doesn't produce jobs that enable everyone to save enough for their old age; that doesn't generate jobs for orphans & other young people without family support --

then you either tax those with income or you sign on to the principle that people without jobs or independent income should die, long & short of it.

the country has a jobs deficit. some of those jobless may be lazy bums, but the fact remains, there aren't enough jobs to go around. and this is *always* the case.

if you're not a big enough fascist to consign people to death, then at the very least you have to support the use of tax money from the 'haves' to fund a living wage jobs program.

[AlexSatan]

101. Are you saying all kids

cannot earn 110 points? I've never heard of a teacher doing something like that.

I have heard of teachers curving the score up (and down) but I think that is a sign of a teacher who doesn't know how to write a good test.

[AZ Mike]

109. No.

What I'm saying is that my ability to earn some particular score does not affect your ability to earn some particular (or same) score.

On the other hand, when it comes to money - if money is scarce and has intrinsic value - if I have $100, that is $100 you cannot have. My wealth displaces your ability to hold that value of wealth because money is scarce.

[AlexSatan]

110. OK

That makes sense. I missed that from your other post.

Thanks!

[JI7]

25. maybe something about Do you Not Feed your Kid if they don't do well

in school ?

there are certain things which everyone should have. it's not a contest.

you can tell them you might buy them a toy or something else they would like(but don't need) if they do well. but if they don't, t hey wont get that item, but you will still provide them a home, food, love etc.

[Throckmorton]

66. I know, we can ask the Czar of all the Russa's what he thinks. N/T

[coalition_unwilling]

69. Your answer may not be the most eloquently worded on this thread but, imo, it

is the best.

Thank you for stating simply and succintly why modern societies have a 'safety net.'

[WinkyDink]

26. . A math teacher is being this political? AND stupid? I'd let his Administrators know.

[bluestate10]

27. Tell them there is no such thing as 110%. If there was, something would be out of whack. nt

[WinkyDink]

38. I was going to say this, too, but he said "points," not "per cent." :-)

[drm604]

28. It's apples and oranges.

Money and test scores are two different things with different purposes. You can't compare the two things like that. It doesn't make sense.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. true. Best answer here, IMHO....they have NOTHING to do with each other

[grantcart]

29. Democrats want

To make sure that the blind student has a reader available so that they can take the test.

To make sure that the African American student doesn't start with a negative 10 points in some places in Mississippi and elsewhere.

To make sure that the poor rural child who doesn't have enough to eat for breakfast will get a good lunch so that they won't space out in the middle of the test.

To make sure that the daughter of the undocumented worker who gets 130 points has a fair chance to become a citizen and become a doctor so she can treat your grandchildren.

To make sure that the gay kid in the back doesn't think about he is abnormal but concentrates on his test and goes on to become a great scientist and write the books that you will be using in your classroom.

To make sure that the text books that are used in your class are not determined by a bunch of uneducated red necks in Texas who don't really understand what is in the Bible but insist that their version of the creation story replaces science.

and finally

Democrats want to continue to invest in education and teachers so that we get better educated teachers who are not tempted to use silly syllogisms with a counterfeit premisethat is completely irrelevant and rather encourage all of their students to continue to learn and grow so that all become winners and reach their potential and the highest score possible.

[Lightbulb_on]

145. The obvious retort ...

... Is what about the lazy student? Do they get a free pass while we try to take care of all the groups you mentioned?

[grantcart]

148. Really? Are you kidding? That is the kind of RW strawman that we should laugh out the door.

First of all no Democratic policty awards the lazy student.


Secondly the President is the one that continually exhorts parents to do their job.


Thirdly a "single" lazy student is obviously the fault of the student. A system that ends up with 30% of the students as "lazy" is a failing of the system and the system needs to be reexamined and challenged.

At no point do Democrats support rewarding laziness, why do you find that rather lame retort so difficult to respond to?

[Lightbulb_on]

150. Whoa there highspeed...

Untwist your undies and take a breath...

I was merely giving the obvious answer that would result from the points you made.

Also, it is better to be realistic and admit that there is a certain portion of the populace who doesn't want to work (study to earn good grade / work to make good money.) There are also folks with legitimate reasons that can't work or test well.

Many of the social safety net policies in place for the latter will benefit the former. Why not just say "We accept it and it's worth it for the benefit given to those who can't"

The equivalent of "Nuh uh" just doesn't have the same ring of intellectual honesty to it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Why the fuck is a teacher even discussing this with a student?

Drives me batty. So inappropriate. Very unethical.

[libdem4life]

31. Send him to the English Deparment and introduce him to Charles Dicken's works.

That's where he's stuck...in the early 19th century. Pretty much sums it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens_bibliography

[WinkyDink]

39. I once held this hope. Then I retired. :-)

[libdem4life]

42. Well, if you're talking about teaching, I salute you. 5 years did me in.

[LiberalAndProud]

32. It isn't about handing out bonuses.

I am about making sure that every kid taking the test isn't too hungry to concentrate on achieving the test points. If a child has food in his belly he is more likely to do better than 72. If a child is cold or hungry or hurting, the child will tell you to shove the test points you're offering up your ass. We're not about making sure everybody succeeds. We are about making sure everyone has access to the basic tools to have the opportunity to succeed.

No one should face uncertainty about the basic requirements of life. No one. Not when we have the resources to remove that uncertainty. We measure ourselves by how well the least well-off among us are, not the richest.

[garthranzz]

33. I have a Ph.D. in English, and I know about that 10%

Hey, math teacher, if I pour 12 ounces of water into a 10 ounce glass, how many ounces will be in the glass? 10. And where will the other 2 ounces be - on the floor, wasted. (I wonder, was the math teacher wasted when he came up with that really dumb analogy?)

Your daughter didn't make "110 points" on the test. She got 100 points. She doesn't need the extra 10 points. They're mathematically wasteful and inefficient.

Aside from that, his first statement is both logically false and empirically stupid.

"He said he can't support a party that feels it is ok to give his hard earned money to people who don't work for theirs."

He assumes that people who "work for their money" automatically receive enough money for, I don't know, food and shelter. The minimum wage in this country is below poverty level. So people who work for their hard-earned money aren't paid properly. Here's an analogy: for me, 2+2=4; for you, 2+2=3.

And by the way, you know people who don't work for their money? Investors. They get dividends. Their money works for them. And guess who subsidizes those lazy bums (builds their roads, pays for their police, etc.?) The very bad math teacher.

[WinkyDink]

40. He might have given a test with 150 points as the top. The S.A.T. isn't on the 100-point scale. :-)

[AlexSatan]

103. Not true

That additional 10 points gives that student a cushion for having a bad day on later exams and still have a score that reflects their aggregate understanding of the material.

More importantly, it allows for a proper ranking of the students based on their understanding of the material. There can only be one "#1 in course", which matters at some schools for grad scholarships and other awards.

[garthranzz]

154. boomerang!

What you said in the first sentence: A cushion for having a bad day on later exams - exactly the point of "provide for the general welfare." Aggregate - total resources.

The teacher posits a zero-sum game. Education is not a zero-sum game. There can be more than one "A" in a class. And there are cases where giving those 19 points benefits the "110 point" student, i.e., if funding, school trips, class prizes, etc. are based on the grades rather than the average. 110 and 72 = A and C, but 91 and 91 = A and A.

Regardless, it's a stupid as well as false analogy.

[JHB]

35. The analogy assumes the rules of the economy are as simple and clearcut as the rules of a test.

On a test, the points for each question are imposed from above and are the same for everybody. There's no negotiating how many points a question is worth, no deal-making, and no difference just because the teacher went to school with someone's father, for instance.

In fact, turn it around: Say whoever gets the high score on a test makes the rules, and there's no teacher to make sure things are fair. What happens when the high score person makes the rule that everyone else has to give him a point, so that on the next test he has a head start on everyone else. He still has to get a good score on his own test to stay on top, but that boost is his reward for doing well on the previous test.

And once he gets the high mark again and gets to make the rules again, he increases how much everyone else has to give him: two points, then three and so on. After a few cycles of this, it gets to be impossible for anyone to beat his score. So something that might have been fair early on gets more out of whack once the one kid keeps making the rules and never has to answer to anyone else.

Even more, what happens when he starts making rules giving perks to second and third place, but he has so many extra points he can pass them out to his friends, or to people kissing up to him to get the perk. And they are bullies.

Money is property, like in the teacher's analogy, but it's also power, like in my analogy. And in America, we established separation of powers, and checks & balance to break up the concentrations of political power that would let people act without accountability to anyone else. We used to do the same with economic power: breaking up monopolies, top-heavy tax rates that made building businesses more attractive than liquidating them, regulations on ownership and what practices certain types of businesses could engage in.

Y'know, the teacher's analogy assumes there is an arbiter on high who keeps the test fair, so that taking points from one person and giving them to another really is unfair -- the teacher. In other words, the teacher is "big government" preventing a black market in point-trading from developing. Absent "big government", you start getting my scenario.

[HiPointDem]

49. +1.

[blue neen]

37. What if someone hits the teacher head-on in a car crash tomorrow while he's driving to work?

If he does survive the accident, perhaps he'll have permanent brain damage that renders said teacher unable to score 110 on his very own test. Suddenly, Mr. Libertarian Teacher does not have a job. Someone will have to "afford" to provide for his care, for life.

Remember, all of this is due to no fault of his own...someone lost control of their car and hit him. Mr. Teacher needs to instruct his students about how fragile circumstances can be in the real world, rather than being a pompous ass who is acting superior, because somehow he feels very inferior.

Just my 2 cents.

[coalition_unwilling]

70. You have nailed it, my friend, in 2 short paragraphs - n/t

[deutsey]

112. +1

[smirkymonkey]

159. Touche!

[JVS]

41. I wonder if your daughter's math teacher would allow people to have math employees do their work

[Zoeisright]

43. I think that teachers needs to be reported to the school board.

That is a completely illogical analogy. Test scores do not have any bearing on whether someone lives or dies. And, as my conservative father once told me, "taxes are the price you pay for living in a free society."

That teacher sounds like a complete asshole.

[Incitatus]

46. There are many good explanations here, but explaining it to the mind of a kid can be difficult.

Hopefully, as they get more life experience they will understand.

[argiel1234]

47. Here is the answer

your daughter used her work and effort to achieve the 110 score

Your daughter didnt force other students to do her homework
Your daughter didnt tell other students to take notes and study for her
Your daughter doesnt own the school and teachers/admins
Your daughter didnt control the property/politicians that control education




In other words, she is not a greedy sociopath Capitalist republican who lies and uses deceit



Simplistic is why critical thinking is being targeted in schools, from K to 12th grade and beyond.

[Marr]

50. And if one kid is handed 10,000 points for not even taking the test?

And all the other kids get 1 point each, no matter how well they did? Eventually, the kids with F's decide they're sick of the whole rotten situation and impale the A+++ kid on something sharp.

My point is, people won't sit and passively starve to death just because you think they deserve to. At some point, people decide to just TAKE your fucking points, or food, or money, or what have you. We strive for some degree of fairness in part to avoid that sort of thing.

[AlexSatan]

105. This ^^^

Is the best counter to the analogy yet. (at least the subject line)

The other limit and impaling the others is hyperbolic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. 1% of the kids get a percentage of the points awarded to the rest of his classmates.

Without any meaningful work of their own except managing all those points.

[deutsey]

114. Yep

[ck4829]

51. Students aren't born with a hundred points on the tests they take.

Students don't exploit loop holes and put their answers in the Cayman Islands and end up with a hundred points.

[bulloney]

79. Students aren't born with 110 points on their tests, but many who run our society

were born into such wealth that they have an advantage in many areas of life. They have so much money that they can now essentially buy our government and stack the deck even more to their advantage to the detriment of the remaining 99% of our society. That's what we're seeing from the Kochs, Waltons and other families.

There's too much assuming that persons with extreme wealth earned it. Quite the opposite in many cases.

That teacher spends too much time listening to RW media, judging from his piss-poor analogy.

[TheKentuckian]

52. Why would it be fair for one student to do nothing and get a 1,877,995% or enough

to do nothing all year and then some, get an A+++, and head to the top college while others must fend for themselves and many can only get a D no matter how hard they work?

Also, how is it fair that a person so stupid would be entrusted to teach students when he makes his living off of the people's taxes and is spewing such nonsense?

[LadyHawkAZ]

54. One kid in class starts the year with a guaranteed 110 on every test

The rest of the class does not.

The rest of the class must study, and are graded on the curve.

All students must give up a portion of their grade. B, C, and D students must give 30%. A students give 20%. F students receive 1%. The one kid at the top gives only 10%, while at the same time taking 5% of the total given up by the other students.

Who's going to get the good grades?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. Comparing a test, where all people are treated equally to a progressive tax system used

to support the needs of the government and it's less fortunate human beings is nonsensical.

[Hissyspit]

57. What an idiot.

You don't spend test points on anything.

You spend earned money. One of things you spend it on is a functioning society.

What an idiot.

[BouzoukiKing]

58. How 'bout this?

If you're a teacher of our young - entrusted with them, their thirst for truth and knowledge, and their naivete - and you use that position of authority and power to indoctrinate them politically, you get thrown in jail for child abuse.

Does that work?

[Milliesmom]

59. I wonder

I wonder if these people realize it is the rich living off the poor and middle class , due to all of us paying higher taxes. It's the rich that are the takers, but not for long, they will pay their fair share.

[abelenkpe]

60. I'd be more interested in having that teacher explain his stupidity

To the school board after I complained about his ignorant ass. But maybe that's just me?

[PD Turk]

61. What a farce

Comparing test points to income is like comparing bananas to battleships, You earn points on a test by answering questions correctly. You answer questions correctly by knowing the answer or sometimes guessing. Knowing the correct answers may or may not take a lot of study, depends on the subject and the student, but bottom line, answer correctly, receive the points.


The adult world of making a living doesn't work that way. Income can come from work or it can come from wealth and ownership. Some people are born with "110 points" and some are born with zero. Many of the hardest working people in the country never get anywhere near the "top score".

How many "points" one get in the income game are determined by an arbitrary "market". You can answer all the questions right but someone above you gets to decide what your answers are worth.

If you're the shit shoveler you work the hardest, get the dirtiest and get a fraction of a point for each answer. If you're the big cheese you sit in an air conditioned luxury office and you get all the points, including some that rightfully belong to the shit shoveler, plus you get the bonus points.

That asshole is a public school teacher, I'd love to ask him if he thinks he's getting paid what he's worth....

[bvf]

62. Not brilliant, but remembering that I could have been faced with the same question. . .

I would just explain that there's a difference between effort and intelligence, and that the more gifted have a responsibility to the less fortunate, who, try as they might, can't match your performance.

You can't give away your smarts, but you *can* help those less gifted than you in any number of ways. Not only that -- you *should.*

- bvf

(Glad I didn't face anything like this when my daughter was in that back seat many years ago!)

[intaglio]

63. Test points are part of you, Money is part of the world

If you have 3 sweets you can certainly give 1 to someone who has none. It is true that you cannot give test points to someone else any more than you can give an eye to someone who is blind but you and your friends can band together to get that person a seeing eye dog.

Does that teacher object to Veterans Administration health assistance? Because that is helping the less fortunate.
If that teacher drives, do they object to using publicly funded roads? Other people pay for that to help everybody.

The trouble is that there are too many people, like that teacher, who do not care or who are terrified of sharing and helping whilst they are not afraid of reaping the benefits of other people caring, helping and giving. Everybody contributes to the common wealth and everybody benefits.

[harmonicon]

64. That's not how money works.

That analogy would only make sense if everyone made the same wage.

The second that one person makes a higher wage, it means that someone else had to make less - that money doesn't come from nowhere.

At my most recent job, I was making $8.50/hour. The people who had been there for years made more. We all did the same work.

Lets say the "test" determines if society can function; if there can be roads, schools which employ math teachers, etc. For that society to function, lets say the class needs an average score of 80 points, and there are 20 students in the class. One student gets 100 points for every correct answer. 4 Students get 5 points for every correct answer, and 15 students get 1 point for every correct answer. There are 100 questions on the test. Is it ok for the student who gets 100 points for every correct answer to not as hard on the test because their correct answers will disproportionately skew the average, or should they still work to bring up that average, because the outcome will effect them as well, even though their contribution is disproportionate.

[jmowreader]

65. Okay, let's play with this

The first problem is how in hell do you make 110 percent on a test? Especially a MATH test? As the great scholar Leo Bloom once told his pupil, "Max, you can only sell 100 percent of anything." (Except, of course, for intentionally bad Broadway plays about Hitler, but swindling little old ladies is not part of the lessons we are teaching today.)

Assuming you can "give" points to someone, maybe the innumerate teacher decided before the test that Mary was going to get no more than a 72 no matter how hard she worked. Get all the questions right? 72. No more. That's what you are going to get, and nothing can change my mind. Let's also assume 72 isn't "enough"--for whatever reason is immaterial. If Mary worked hard and hit the teacher's barrier--say she missed one of 100 questions, but still got 72--then yeah, giving her some help to reach her rightful goal would be okay. If she got 72 because she was lazy and didn't feel like studying, she keeps the 72.

And that is the reality of social programs. People who are industrious but because of any number of factors--no jobs available, no good jobs, only reasonable job available requires 10 gallons of gas a day to get to, health problems, etc., etc., etc.--need assistance anyway should receive assistance, and that's the real criteria they use when deciding who gets help and who doesn't. People who could get a job but refuse to, shouldn't get help and in the real world, they don't.

[hfojvt]

67. well now I am annoyed

that my hard earned tax money is being used to pay a math teacher who is so bad at logic and so lacking in compassion and so unaware of social and economic realities.

Does he make $50,000 a year?

How about this? I have a degree in math and make $30,000 a year working as a janitor. How about I take his job for $30,000 a year and save those taxpayers $20,000. Then he can pound the streets looking for work in this economy without the benefit of any safety nets that he doesn't believe in.

[jmondine]

68. The problem with the analogy is that every student is on an even playing field.

Here's why I can't support Republicans:

It would be like letting students with rich parents buy their 110 points without even having to take the test.

Meanwhile, if the rest of the class gets every question right, they've earned a 72.

And the three poorest kids have to take the whole class in a month, working from dawn to dusk. They then are given just 15 minutes to answer all of the questions. If they get a perfect score, then they still only get a 60, because they're poor and lazy.

[XemaSab]

71. Let's try the analogy of an entire math class

If there are 10 tests in the math class, and a student gets 100% on all the tests, then they get an A.

Say a student gets 100% on the 1st 5 of the tests and on the 6th test they get 5%. After this disastrous test, the teacher sits them down, explains a few concepts, and then the kid goes back to getting 100% on the last 4, so the kid gets an A in the class.

But if a student gets 100% on the 1st 5 of the tests and on the 6th test they get 5% and the teacher never explains the concepts, the kid keeps getting 5% for the rest of the tests and winds up with an F in the class.

The idea behind public welfare is that maybe if you give someone a helping hand, they can become a productive member of society. It takes some time and energy and money, but it's part of the job.

[Azathoth]

72. Every question on your test is worth half a point and every question on his test is worth one point

Fair?

Unfortunately, these kinds of simplistic analogies are easier for right-wingers to employ because their entire worldview is founded on an 8th grade reasoning level.

[MADem]

73. If the person who made 110 points had a clean, warm classroom and a small class in which to learn

the lessons needed to make that 110, and the other person learned his lessons in a freezing cold classroom with no books, broken desks, an enormous class of children, some of whom were unruly and took up all the teacher's time, well, anyone coming from that circumstance would be LUCKY and SMART to be able to pull in a 72.

That's a pretty simple way to put it.

Oh, and one other thing? That teacher is a selfish fucking asshole. Make sure you tell her that, too. He'll be voting "D" when the GOP tries to take away his pension, guar-an-TEED.

[quaker bill]

74. Actually it is more like this

The guy who inherited a million points from his dad buys his way out of the test, gets some of your and everyone else's points, and keeps them in an off shore account without being taxed at all.

[Taitertots]

75. If his analogy were true (it isn't) He would be the one with 72 that gets 19 points

Teaching is highly subsidized by the government (It should be).

Also, in simply quantitative terms the only transfers of wealth in the nation are from the bottom 99% to the 1% and from Blue Urban areas to Red rural areas. The Republican party is the party the benefits the most from and supports government enforced wealth transfers.

[Ya Basta]

76. Hey teach...Too bad you're a teacher and don't realize you just describe precisely why you should

vote Democratic. Because someone IS giving YOUR hard earned money to people who didn't work for it -- your employer and/or banks. You are not being paid YOUR FAIR SHARE of what YOUR labor created. That wealth exists, you created it, but you never got it, SOMEONE ELSE did.

Republicans are responsible for this reality among us working folks not Democrats.

[The Straight Story]

77. This one is easy:

You have a class of 30 kids (yeah, overcrowding) and hand out the test.

40 questions. You need 75 points to pass.

But there are only 500 points total to give out, and the kids in the front row get theirs graded first, then second row.

Money. Oil. Precious Metals. Natural resources - are like points, there is only so much of each and our class is getting bigger.

[whistler162]

78. Tell him to stop reading the spam from

his "neo-conservative" friends emails and to stop plagiarizing them. This story has been traveling the internets for years in various forms.

[demwing]

80. Ask if girls should earn a score of 75%

for the same answers that would earn a boy a score of 100%?

Or if minority students should only get a fraction of the study resources available to a white student?

If he doesn't think that's fair, then he should vote Democratic, and stop crying like a Republican.

[4th law of robotics]

87. We need to stop pushing that line

there are legitimate women's issues.

A wage gap that doesn't really exist once all relevant factors are included in the assessment just makes us look silly.

[demwing]

94. Nope, I'm fine with the truth

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then don't talk about it--but unless you've got hard evidence, don't pretend that pay inequality between genders doesn't exist. It does.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. Pay inequality between careers definitely exists.

A 25% pay gap is mostly an artifact of that.


Page 2, next-to-last paragraph.

[demwing]

118. Not what I read at all

See page 14 (graph) and the following text:

Although earnings for men and women were similar in some majors, such as health care fields and education, in others like engineering and engineering technology, computer and information sciences, and the social sciences, women earned between 77 percent and 88 percent of what men earned.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Male and female workers who make the same choices earn nearly the same pay.

From the AAUW;

Consider a hypothetical pair of graduates—one man and one woman—from the same university who majored in the same field. One year later, both were working full time, the same number of hours each week, in the same occupation and sector. Our analysis shows that despite these similarities, the woman would earn about 7 percent less than the man would earn.

If you want to explore the 7% difference, I'm all ears. If you want to talk about a 25% gap, I'm not, because 3/4 of the difference is a consequence of choices.

[4th law of robotics]

120. The truth is a great thing and I am all for it

but saying women make 70% of what a man makes for the same job isn't the truth.

You can only get that stat by comparing the mean salary of all women to all men.

This means that working 35 hours is no different than working 55 hours.

Or that 15 years seniority is the same as 0.

Or that a CEO is the same as a day care worker.

I think we can rightly agree that those are different things. Yes? You can admit to that can't you?

If you account for relevant factors at most you can get about 6% difference.

And even if that were entirely attributable to sexism and not other factors that are harder to quantify (like aggressiveness in demanding raises) that is a far cry from the 30% cited by some that cannot be supported by the facts.

And if the facts show the 70 cents on the dollar for the same job claim to be untrue then it is not the Truth. Correct?

[demwing]

125. Just curious, which I should respond to--

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Your claim that wage inequality doesn't exist, or that it does exist, but it isn't as bad as 30%?

[4th law of robotics]

141. When a group that sought to prove the 30% wage gap

was only able to find at most a 6% difference that even they couldn't attribute to sexism (but rather more likely less quantifiable variables) then I think you need to acknowledge that saying women earn 70 cents on the dollar for *the same job* as a man is a lie.

Do you acknowledge this fact?

[union_maid]

81. It's a completely false analogy

A scholastic test is for the purposes of measurement. They measure a student's progress and mastery, or lack thereof, of the subject matter. In the aggregate they measure the success for failure of the teacher and/or school. Those are their purposes, whether they fulfill them well or not. And they are not a zero sum game. Everyone in the class could get 100% or everyone in the class could fail. I would give the person who floated this analogy to you a D at best.

[jollyreaper2112]

82. Bumper sticker logic

You've pointed out the problem. It's simple, sounds good, and it takes some effort to explain why that's not the way it works. Reality is more complicated than that. It takes more effort to learn how the world really works. And that can end up sounding like blah blah blah. You sound like you're bullshitting. They might not even follow your argument. Myself, I had to age out of believing the America With the White Cowboy Hat myth. It's beautiful, virtuous, makes you feel good, and isn't true in the least. Admitting it hurts deep.

Away from politics, scientists have had the same problem. Look at how pissed Einstein was over quantum mechanics. God doesn't place dice with the universe! Newton showed there are rules to motion in macrospace so I hold we should find the same in microspsace. Except it don't work that way. Poopies.

[quinnox]

83. tell the teacher he gets an "A" in Math, but an "F" in social studies and history

Those subjects should have taught him life is far richer and all-encompassing in scope than can ever be reduced to a simplistic math problem. Life does not exist in a vacuum.

[Myrina]

136. ^^ This.

[PATXgirl]

84. But America is a nation. It is a society, made up of individuals.

Lets say you have a bunch of kids on a basketball court shooting hoops. One (kid A) scores 110 points and the others scores zero...none, nada, zip. These are all Kid Bs.

Is it fair to take the points Kid A scored and count the Kid Bs as winners too?

Sure, we do it all the time. When they are playing as a TEAM, with one kid doing his part on offense and others as defense. Both are doing their part to help the team win, it's just that the parts are structured that one is more easily 'valued' and quantifiable than the other. But put Kid A on the court with no Kid B's to block, pass, WORK to help him and I doubt he could still make those 110 points.

Just as no job creator could be as successful without workers to help make his products, a safe market environment to trade his products, a society willing to buy his products.

Move the example to pro or college ball...Kid A may get more money or a better scholarship offer because of his talent. He may even get MVP. But everyone has a role to play and a part to pay. And on really successful teams, the better players encourage and challenge the others to play up to their full potential.

As a team, we either ALL win or ALL lose.

But that's just my 7 a.m. Not-yet-caffeinated thought.

[Cal Carpenter]

85. Right, because hunger and homelessness is like getting a C-

Especially to a kid.

[4th law of robotics]

86. I'd agree with that if everyone were given the same test

in reality, to complete the analogy, some people got a 110 on a test that went up from 60-200.

Others got a 72 on a test that went from 0-80.

[Puregonzo1188]

88. Is this a public school? If so where does he think his income is coming from?

[ProfessorGAC]

89. You Don't Need An Analogy

Because the teacher stupidly assumes that the person who got the 72 got that because they didn't work at it.

Maybe that subject matter is not what they're best at.

So, the "analogy" is weightless because it presumes something has to be true when it doesn't.

Surely your 8th grader would grasp that.
GAC

[NotThisTime]

90. It is simply a false equivalency, end of story....

That kid who got the 110 on the quiz may not come from a place that can support a college education and that very same kid may wind up working for minimum wage for the rest of their lives. They may not have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The kid who got the 72 on the test may wind up at Columbia because their father could write a check for several million dollars as a donation. I actually speak from experience on this one... If you don't think the fact that you can come from old money and get by on that alone, well, you can, with a 72, into Columbia. Life isn't fair, and the multitude of kids who had 4.0's should have had that spot, but they didn't. That's for this year's Freshman class.

[JoeyT]

91. A more accurate analogy for the parties might be

Which group would you prefer: The one that takes the extra ten points from a person that makes a 110 (Points they don't need anyway.) and distributes them across the class, or the one that takes five points from everyone in the class and gives it to the person that made the 110 because they clearly deserve it more, even if it makes some kids fail that normally wouldn't have.

[Kaleva]

92. He himself is being given points by others.

His paycheck comes from taxpayers. Many of whom do not have children in school. He'd be out of a job or have to take a drastic pay cut if only the parents or guardians of children in his school paid school property taxes.

I think it humorous that a person whose income and benefits come from the points given to him by others, the taxpayers, would use such an analogy.

[Paladin]

93. So....Is This Teacher's Behavior Now Accepted As Proper?

Do school teachers now get to announce their political viewpoints in class, and in a manner that trashes those who don't believe as they do? This sure as hell wasn't tolerated when I went through school, nor when my children attended school. I'm assuming that this was a public school, grades K-12, and maybe that assumption is incorrect. What's the deal, here?

[reusrename]

95. What the teacher is telling your kid is amoral.

It goes directly against all major theological doctrine; it is the anti-thesis to Christ's teaching.

The math teacher's "greed is good" philosophy is making a comeback and in this present incarnation it is called objectivism. Its destructive effects are scattered throughout the pages of history. It is the same rationale that is behind slavery, and it is morally bankrupt and socially a step backwards.

[OnionPatch]

96. Who's to say they didn't work just as hard?

That's part of the problem.....if everyone who "worked hard" were compensated accordingly, we wouldn't have to have government help for working people (except for unemployment benefits if they unexpectedly lose their job.) The problem is that there are armies of workers out there working their butts off and not even receiving enough to live on. They and/or their dependents are eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing, etc., etc. because their employers are too freakin' cheap to pay them a living wage. Please explain this to your daughter. There is a big old pie that is the fruit of ALL of our labor. Because the rich hold the knife, they cut themselves an obscenely huge piece of the pie, in fact they take most of it and leave the tiniest shaving for the rest of us to share among us. I don't think it's wrong that the business owner take a larger slice for himself, but the size of the slices they take these days is just outrageous. They feel they are "entitled" to cheap labor. It's so wrong that we have to subsidize hard working people because the rich are too greedy to pay them a living wage.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

97. Well, you can start with the obvious, which is that academic grades can't be compared to income.

"Success" in life is not always measured by how much money you make. How hard one works does not always equal wealth. Some of the hardest working people in this country currently reside below the poverty line. Some of the laziest people in the country currently live in mansions.

So income is not necessarily successfully earned as one successfully earns a grade.

Moreover, grades are on a fixed scale. One cannot earn higher than an A+. If we are talking numerical grades, one cannot earn higher than a 100 spare a few extra credit points. Yet people can earn billions and billions of dollars. So it's not like someone who gets 110 points giving a few points to a person making a 72. It's more like someone getting a 11110 giving a few points to a person making a 72.

But playing ball with the ridiculously flawed analogy:

You should ask how they earned that 110. Were the person who got the 110 given extra study sessions that the person who got the 72 wasn't offered? Was he/she given more time than the others? Was he/she given answers in advance? Was he/she the child of the teacher, and the teacher gave him/her the 110 points because the teacher wanted to see him/her earn a good grade?

[WaitWut]

98. I love this Analogy...

I usually respond with...

"Well, if we use that measure, Paris Hilton makes you look like a lazy, worthless, window licking, mouth breather." If I really want to get them agitated I'll add, "Why can't you work as hard as Paris Hilton?!?"

[Digit]

99. That was funny

Thanks for the chuckle

[JoePhilly]

117. +1 ... Paris Hilton makes more than the teacher, so clearly, she is smarter than this teacher.

[4th law of robotics]

121. Smarter *and* harder working

and of greater value to society.

We can get by without teachers. But do you really want to live in a world without socialite party-girls?

[bongbong]

102. Ultra-stupid analogy

Money is a zero-sum game.

Academic achievement is not.

He's comparing apples & oranges, and in addition should be fired for teaching students such stupid lies.

Edited to add: His tests suck too (if 100 is the nominal top score), since a properly designed test should have NO ONE getting a perfect score. That is unfair to the top scorers since it doesn't accurately measure their accomplishment. Grading on a curve has real, scientific reasoning behind it.

[Locrian]

116. yep

That's the dirty trick here: he's taking something that (supposedly) measures intelligence (math scores) and turning it into money. So the kids see that you can't 'give' the scores (intelligence). But they mistake that for what the teacher is all about: the zero sum game of money.

[slackmaster]

104. The analogy falls apart simply because some people are better at math than others

In fact there are just 10 kinds of people in this world - Ones who understand binary and zeros who do not.

[deutsey]

108. How did he feel giving 19 points to the banksters who cheated on the test?

[dawg]

111. Should dumb people be allowed to eat?

Not everyone is mentally or emotionally capable of earning enough money to support themselves. Should we euthanize them?

Others are willing and able to work, but there are not enough jobs for them. The government could create more jobs, but that would cost money, and that money would have to come from somewhere.

It's easy to come up with glib little analogies to rationalize one's selfishness, but that's all this is. It's not about grades, it's about survival.

[GaYellowDawg]

119. As a teacher, I'll say

He has NO BUSINESS trying to indoctrinate his students politically. My students have zero idea how I voted.

[Lucinda]

122. The purpose of the test is to measure knowledge

Giving someone extra points wont make them smarter.

Taking money from those with plenty and helping someone with little is a different thing all together.

[drm604]

123. Suppose one person inherits the 110 test points and doesn't even have to take the test.

Further suppose that another person is born with limited intellectual capacity and has to spend hours struggling just to earn 72 test points.

Should the person who worked hard and struggled to earn those 72 points have to live on the street or maybe even starve to death while the person who inherited 110 points has all of their needs met with points left over through no effort of their own?

That doesn't make sense does it? Test points aren't inherited and can't be spent for food or rent. That's exactly the problem with this teacher's stupid analogy. Test points are not money. You can't compare the two.

[The Midway Rebel]

124. Yup. I was shocked at how conservative most of my teacher colleagues turned out to be.

Welcome to my world.

[Duer 157099]

126. Shit, I'd gladly donate 25 pounds to whoever wants them!

All kinds of false equivalencies to those who lack critical thinking skills.

(and by pounds, I mean the mass kind, not the currency)

[upaloopa]

127. Use logic. Logic says that if any of the premises

of an argument is wrong, the conclusion is wrong.
The biggest untruth is that people who don't work get money from Democrats.
Basically the teacher is lying to cover his greed and anti social feelings.
Jesus said what ever you do to the least of these you do to me. Also the sermon on the mount tells us to care for the poor.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

128. The kid with 110 points should spend time tutoring the kid with 75. Class grades aren't zero sum.

[DonRedwood]

130. um...wait...isn't that the argument they use against clean air?

this business makes 200 tons of carbon more than they should...so they buy credits from a company that makes less.

[Quantess]

131. People who use ill fitting analogies to make arguments...

when they are hungry for fruit roll-ups, they grab fly paper instead and eat that. Practically the same thing!

[chowder66]

132. Can the kids give away their test points? If not then the analogy is baseless.

Ask them this;

Are you allowed to give your test points to other kids?
(If they say no, then ask them why it makes sense to them if it is based on a false premise).

Let them know the teacher gave them an illogical analogy even though it was wrapped up to seem reasonable and easy to remember, yet they now know it isn’t because they cannot give away test points.

Then ask them if they would want to present a bad analogy that is easy to remember but incorrect?
Or would they rather be able to present a good analogy that is more complicated but more representative of
the truth?

Tell them that is a big difference today. Those that go for the easy soundbites and those who look at the complications and conclude truths.

[ThoughtCriminal]

133. Can I just inherit points from my Dad?

That works with the teacher's analogy.

At some schools, this is known as "Legacy".

[Stuckinthebush]

152. I used that one

[Myrina]

135. Because it takes nothing away from you, and increases your humanity

... to share with those that need a little help so that in the long run, we all succeed.
It's the social contract - we take care of each other. And you never know when you're going to come up a little short on "test points" yourself.

[GeorgeGist]

139. In his world it would be OK to sell the extra points.

[GiaGiovanni]

144. The basis of the argument is that both grade points and income are connected to MERIT and hard work

This is clearly false. Grade points are directly connected to merit and hard work. Income is not. Some people can be extremely good at their jobs and work extremely hard and make much less than others due to the family they are born into, the college they can afford. the company they end up working for, racial/gender discrimination, the field they are in (socially responsible fields pay much less than corporate raider positions), etc. People can also lose their jobs through no fault of their own, despite their merit and hard work.

I think I would explain it to a child by saying that school is a special situation, where, if you work hard and are intelligent, you can get what you deserve in terms of grades (or close to it.) However, the real world is different. The money someone has sometimes has nothing to do with hard work or merit. Some people work very hard and really do deserve what they have. Others inherit their money or have privileges that others don't. Some people work in fields that do no social good and just take the money of other people (the finance "industry&quot .

[LeftishBrit]

146. The assumption here is that earnings are directly related to how hard you work

Very often not. Some of the toughest jobs are low-paid. People can work all hours, often at more than one job, and still have little money.

And there are not enough jobs for those who want them; so most of the unemployed are those who can't find jobs, not those who won't work.

In any case, there are situations where people do appropriately share points - e.g. in team games. Perhaps life should be seen more as a team game and less as an individual competition.

[Honeycombe8]

149. S'easy.

1. No one is taking your teacher's money and giving it to someone who doesn't work. So that's not true in the 1st place.

2. What your teacher is talking about is taxes.

3. What taxes are: The government (all kinds of govt...local, state, federal, school districts, cities) take a small part of EVERY person's income, and puts it into a big pool. The pool of money is then used to make the government run FOR EVERYONE: street lights, schools, YOUR TEACHER'S SALARY, the people who answer the phone at the place where you get your driver's license, highways, bridges, the military to protect the country, fixing potholes, maintaining the beautiful parks, the Grand Canyon upkeep and patrol, the Social Security office that totals and sends out grandma's check, the govt office that sends us the car's license plates, and all those things.

4. In addition to those things I just said that taxes pay for, are a FEW things that the govt pays all or part of, for people who have run into some bad trouble. Like food stamps, welfare money FOR CHILDREN, paying PART of a low-income place for EMPLOYED people, unemployment compensation (what grownups get for a few weeks or months after being laid off through no fault of their own, so they don't become homeless, while looking for another job), free medical care of the lowest kind for those who HAVE NO MONEY AT ALL.

THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR THIS, BUT DID NOT VOTE TO TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR INCOME, OR EVEN THAT INCOME THAT IS MORE THAN SOMEONE ELSE'S. EVERYONE pays the taxes, unless they're dirt poor and don't have any money left over after buying food.

Those programs are called social programs. Most of the people who get help from those programs ARE WORKING. Most of the people who get help from those programs get help only for a period of time.

The reason the government does that is because the PEOPLE of the country voted that they want to help these people through those bad times, to help them stay afloat, to help them get on their feet, so they don't starve to death or become homeless. Remember...most of those people are working, but maybe they don't get paid much, or maybe they are not allowed to work enuf hours to get paid enough to buy food for the children.

The reason the people want to do those social programs is because we value the dignity and lives of everyone. We don't want people starving in the streets, if it's avoidable. It's called a safety net.

The social programs are not the same thing as someone who is a total deadbeat TAKING money out of your pocket. That is called theft. Like when you are mugged and they make you give them your wallet. That is not what a social program is.

Do you see the difference? Most of the people got together and decided they want to help others who are in extreme situations. There is a limit to the help. And there are restrictions about who can get the help.

This is a democracy. We decide things by vote. Anyone who disagrees is free to say so. But to say, basically, the that people are stealing and it's not fair to the people is flat wrong, and goes against what a democracy is. The PEOPLE themselves have decided. This is a democracy.

So about your grades. If your class is like the government, then your class gets to vote on whether points should be shared, regardless of how hard you work. Do you think your class would vote to do that? I don't either. That's because directly taking from one to give to another, for no good reason, that doesn't help the common good, doesn't make sense, and people wouldn't vote to do that. Your classmate who got 72 points isn't going without food, or without a home, or things like that.

Since your class is like a government, what if one of your classmates got really sick and didn't have the money to get some medicine? If your class voted on whether you should all pitch in some $ to pay for his medicine, do you think your class would vote to do that? I think so, too.

[Volaris]

153. Unless I had the rest of the Class answer all of those questions FOR ME...

then I don't deserve a damned one of those points, because I didn't do any of the WORK myself, and I'm flying high on the intelligence, creativity, and energy of OTHER PEOPLE.

Tell her THAT is the appropriate response.

[HiPointDem]

155. +1

[jtuck004]

157. It must gall him that he's teaching EVERYONE ELSE'S kids and paying with HIS taxes.

Ought to ask him why - if it was just a job, he could get one that doesn't involve as much stress and responsibility.

But then he might say it's because the kids need to get educated - in other words HE benefits from a more highly educated society.

That's because what he is talking about is an INVESTMENT, not an expense. Obviously not an accounting major.

Have him read Jack London where he describes people storing their dead children on a cold shelf until they had enough pennies to pay for it.

THAT'S what the hard-earned money is doing, it is being INVESTED because he doesn't want to try and raise his family in that kind of community. And if people have no food or shelter, all his work goes right down the drain - who cares if they can read if they aren't safe? How well will they read if they are hungry?

He is pretty shortsighted, but I knew a lot of teachers like that.

That said, not having a job robs people of real dignity, and we are heading into a decade of higher income inequality, millions of people who will have to learn to live without a job, and increasing poverty with higher numbers of working poor than we may have ever seen in this country. Our answer is to send lots of money to rich people who really don't even think about anyone else and hope they will, in some imaginary impulse of generosity, drop a few coins to us.

It appears many were taught by people just like that guy.

[whistler162]

158. Ask him about plagarism rules...

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

or what grade he would give for copying other peoples work?

[tsuki]

160. Only if they were a Walmart heir and paid for it. nt