Poor Grade Students: A Call to Action

With much attention recently paid to issues like health care, bankrupted industries, economies in recession, global warming, immigration, and oil spills, one area seems to have been neglected: the plight of poor grade students. Much like low-income families, poor grade students have been lost in the fray as we rush to higher and higher education. Changes in the perceptions of degrees – a master’s degree today has about the same prestige as a bachelor’s did a generation ago – among other things are increasingly problematic for the poor-graded, as we continue to ignore this issue. One may shortsightedly see this plight as reflecting embarrassingly on both the educational system and on the students themselves.

But this view ignores a much larger and long term issue at stake. This is the impact of grades on the student’s economic future. Before we discuss that, however, we must detour in another (related) problem.

As the student moves upwards through the educational system, he will find it easier to acquire higher education if he has the high grades sought after by educators. This can be seen in the areas of scholarships, college offers, graduate work, honors societies and others. High grade students are given continuous opportunities to succeed. Lower graded students are not. Is it any wonder that this is the case? Those who run institutions of higher learning are generally PhD’s themselves and are likely biased toward those of their own education level, as well as maintaining the prestige of their degrees.

Let us go back now to the economic futures of students. As we have just seen, low grades will, in all likelihood, result in a lack of high education for the student. High education is inarguably linked to high-paying jobs. We find exactly what we expect: that, in Detroit, for example, the education level is low; the income level is as well.

This brings us to a related problem: that of “grade inequality”, the fact that not only do some students have high grades and some low, but that there is much in equality in the distribution of grades. This occurs along geographical boundaries and also within individual classrooms. It exacerbates the problem when 100% correct assignments receive a 4.0 grade while 50% receives 0. A correction of this system will hardly solve the problem at hand, however. College admissions and employers will soon adjust to this new arrangement. It is simply that this, along with the fact that high grades result in more educational opportunities, aggravates the issue of grade inequality. Something more pervasive must be enacted.

As we continue to think about this problem, we must also remember that grades tend to be hereditary. Children of higher graded parents often receive high grades themselves, and the same inheritance trends from lower graded parents to their children (unfairly, of course – these children did not receive this poor inheritance by their own choice, but acquired it through no fault of their own). This only serves to worsen situation for a poor grade neighborhood. Poor grade parents with low incomes will likely have poor grade children, who will likely receive low incomes, making them no more able to support their parents than their parents were able to support them. This, as anyone can see, will almost certainly keep lower grade communities low grade and high grade communities high grade. The economic results, I need not redundantly state.

Finally, there are some people who charge that students with low grades are just lazy, but that ignores many hard-working students that are simply unable to get ahead of the piles of homework stacked in front of them. We must not allow these unfortunate students to get lost in the fray.

What solutions might exist? So called “grade curves” might be used, but this can only be effective to an extent, as it is currently not mandated to employ them. Even if it were, this would only possibly solve part of the problem. It could help in the area of inequality across school lines, but it does nothing to promote equality within the classroom, since they simply raise the grades of all the students in a classroom with generally low test scores.

My solution would be this: Tax high grade students and give those grades to students with poorer grades. We cannot simply give everyone the same grade, as that would nullify anything the higher grade students have done. However, we can redistribute some grades. It is unnecessary for a student – we will call him Johnny – with a 100%-correct assignment to keep all 100%. 95% will suffice, as it is above the 4.0 line in any classroom. The 5% taken off the top could then be redistributed to Johnny’s friend, Tommy, who is struggling to stay afloat. Tommy, with his 66% on his assignment, will receive 5% on top of that and then achieve a passing 71%, and little Johnny will not have to go on to the next grade without his best friend.

This solution helps out the students at the bottom by relieving the top students only of the grades they do not really need. Not only that, but it will result in more equal distribution of grades. In the case of Johnny and Tommy, the difference is cut from 34% to 24%.

Of course, there would be a cut-off point. Not all higher grade students would have their grades taxed. This would be ridiculous. It would not even be necessary for middle-high students to give as much as the high grade students. The higher graded students can afford it; the middle-high cannot as much.
In order to solve inequality across geographical lines, it would be necessary to institute this plan at the national level. The total students who could be taxed would likely be enough to alleviate the plight of their fellow, less-fortunate students.

As to other solutions: a minimum grade law is something that we need to look into more. It would take some form opposite to the current grade system. Instead of 50% being graded at a 0 GPA, 25% percent – or another number determined by experts – would receive a minimum of 1.0 – or, once again, another appropriate number determined by experts. This could help keep students from falling through the cracks, but, again, more research should be done.

I see no realistic way of enacting an educational version of an estate tax – taxing parents’ grades when they die, and this does nothing to deal with the issue of the unfair inheritance of better grades by some children than by others. I do not see any point in pursuing that idea any further.

At this point, grade redistribution through taxation seems to be the best solution.

Bauer-ize Them

To many, the policy of reading Miranda rights to terrorists and making them aware of the legal right to remain silent, as well as the right to an attorney, is inexplicable. If the captured terrorist is part of a multi-target plot, like those involved in the 9/11 attack, why would we informationally handcuff those entrusted with the public safety by “Mirandizing” the terrorist who may be a source of crucial intelligence? The response is generally something along the lines of “It’s their right. That’s the cost of freedom.”

So the cost of freedom is that we do not allow those whose job it is to protect that freedom (or another basic right we in America hold dear – the right to life) to do that job effectively. Certainly we can all agree that when two things we want cannot exist at the same time, we must make a trade-off. We may sacrifice expediency in one area to protect freedom in another. But since when does the freedom of a person who intends to make war on our country and destroy us trump the protection of many law-abiding citizens?

Modern liberalism has some roots in what Thomas Sowell calls the unconstrained view of human nature . The unconstrained vision, which sees human nature as malleable and perfectible, finds the suspension of legal rights in the case of public safety a barbaric nod to warlike sentiments. Instead of “beating” the information out of him, we can convince him of the error of his ways with the humanity we extend through the legal system. This in turn will convert him into a man able to fit into civilized society; it will rehabilitate him, and eventually end the war. Rehabilitation is the solution offered for the problem, the crime of terrorism, as it is the solution offered by those who hold the unconstrained view for all other crimes.

The problem is that the terrorist is warring against us. He may be committing crimes while he conducts the war, but fundamentally he does not simply want to avoid the rules of our society, he wants to destroy the society and its people. He cannot be punished, deterred or rehabilitated. He, and his cohorts, can only be stopped, and our legal system is not adequate to wage a war against these enemy combatants, most of whom never possessed legal rights in the first place.

Instead, we “Bauer-ize” them.