The Democrats' new initiative Academic Security

[aneeshm]

In a statement generating much controversy , the Democratic Party spokesman ( PC : spokesperson ) revealed that the party's top brass was contemplating extending the social security system into schools , in the form of a new initiative called academic security , as soon as they got back into power .

The spokesperson said , “It's the same principle that has been so successfully applied before . The same way we provide a safety net for those unfortunates who , due to circumstances , cannot provide for themselves , we should provide a similar safety net for those cannot secure a passing grade . Principally , failing the the child's equivalent of an adult facing starvation in later life due to a lack of care by the state .”

Many Republican organisations condemned the move as an attempt to consolidate the Democratic vote bank . The spokesperson of one such organisation had this to say on Fox News , “It's a cheap political ploy to get the underachievers in their political bag . It is well-known that those with lower grades have a higher incidence of poverty and dependence on state welfare later in life . And it is also well-known that most under under-achievers , including entire communities that are statistically under-achieving , like African-Americans , Hispanics , etc. , also vote primarily Democrat . It doesn't take a genius to figure out who this move is supposed to pander to .”

Though the details are not fully clear as yet , the spokesperson had a tentative plan outlined .

She said , “Say , for example , that we gave an upward multiplier of 5 % to an African-American , and by come lucky stroke , that person achieved a grade of 3.9 out of a possible 4.0 . We obviously cannot have the ridiculous result of a 4.1 out of 4.0 . So we decided on a downward multiplier for non-disadvantaged children . The downward multiplier will be applicable if you fit a few criterion , for example , if you are male , white , fully able-bodied , non-disadvantaged ( financially or racially ) , and so on . This is not to say that we are penalising achievers . In fact , we even have an upward multiplier for a child if they are not eligible for a corresponding downward multiplier and if they are failing . A rich white male has an obvious advantage over an African-American female living in a neighbourhood which is not so affluent . Why , then , should the African-American child be punished for something that is not his fault ? We want grades to reflect the complete picture , and not raw academic ability . We are only attempting to level the playing field .”

Later , she also added that the downward multipliers could be removed in a particular child's case if it earned 'Neutralisation Credits' by helping tutor their disadvantaged peers , or paid for some part of a disadvantaged child's education . She said it was a way of fostering the community spirit in schools .

Does this sound ridiculous ?

 

[aneeshm]

Note : This is a satirical peice I wrote on my own , so temper your replies accordingly . It is supposed to show the fallacies behind social security .

 

[AVN]

Does this sound ridiculous ?

No .

 

[~Corsair#01~]

But the school you go to, and thus the skill of the teaching staff, is determined by family wealth. Thus rich people find it easier to get good grades than say, someone whose parents have to work looong hours to allow their child to go to school.

The downward multiplier will be applicable if you fit a few criterion , for example , if you are male , white , fully able-bodied , non-disadvantaged ( financially or racially ) , and so on .

Girls get better grades than males (biological reasons), so why would it only apply to males? Young girls aren't any poorer than young boys.

And yes, it does sound ridiculous. And no, it doesn't point out the "fallacies" of social security.

 

[DBear]

aneeshm, this is the problem with writing satire. It sounds loony, until you hear the left take it seriously. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this is an actual proposal, especially if they get back in after 2008.

 

[De Lorimier]

aneeshm, this is the problem with writing satire. It sounds loony, until you hear the left take it seriously. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this is an actual proposal, especially if they get back in after 2008.

What?
There's a party from the left who could take power in 2008?
It's news to me.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Well, it is ridiculous, but you've missed the underlying premise of social security. On average, you should get back what you pay in plus a little interest. Doesn't really work that way and is a pay and go system, but I don't think your article and social security compare.

 

[Shadylookin]

Note : This is a satirical peice I wrote on my own , so temper your replies accordingly . It is supposed to show the fallacies behind social security .

actually everyone that gets social security has paid into it, or is incapable of working. It would be different if this was back when social security started and people were getting something for nothing, but I imagine all of those have died by now. Not to mention the more you put in to social security the more you get back(the opposite of your proposal). Granted I would like to see social security phased out, but your analogy is wrong.

 

[Keirador]

Does this sound ridiculous ?

No .

Am I interpretting this correctly? There are actually people who suppose that this would be a good idea?

 

[aneeshm]

******OMG******WTF****** !!!!!!


I never expected there to be people crazy enough to take this seriously , specially after I explicitly mentioned that it is satire . I hope I haven't started something crazy . . . . . . . .

 

[AVN]

Am I interpretting this correctly? There are actually people who suppose that this would be a good idea?

I haven't said that.
The question I have answered was "Does this sound ridiculous ?"
IMHO this idea of aneeshm (and I know it is satire) can to a certain extent be compared with the system known as "Affirmative action" in the USA. So it exists already and therefore I answered that question in the negative. I can't call it ridiculous.

In general I don't like this idea, but that's a complete different question.

******OMG******WTF****** !!!!!!


I never expected there to be people crazy enough to take this seriously , specially after I explicitly mentioned that it is satire . I hope I haven't started something crazy . . . . . .

I didn't take this idea seriously and I like to point to your second post in this thread in which you asked that people should temper their replies ...

Finally I don't think that this idea can be compared with social security as it exists in for example Western European countries.

So I guess your intentions with this thread failed ...

 

[Perfection]

Ah, sheesh, now I'm going to have to pay even more for college.

Damn my succesful white parents, they try to succeed but the more they succeed the more I have to pay.

 

[AVN]

Ah, sheesh, now I'm going to have to pay even more for college.

Damn my succesful white parents, they try to succeed but the more they succeed the more I have to pay.

IMHO aneeshm wants to meddle with the scores, not with the money your parents have to pay.

Edit : I see now that he wants to do that in later stages.

 

[aneeshm]

I don't want to meddle in anything , I just want to point out the ill-effects if someone does .

 

[Scuffer]

Note : This is a satirical peice I wrote on my own , so temper your replies accordingly . It is supposed to show the fallacies behind social security .

It is a very good caricature, but as a tool for debating social security, it is not very useful. Still, if you fancy yourself as the Indian O'Rouke, it's a decent starting point.