Have your cake?

Eat it, too.

Do All Students Rightly Deserve the Best Marks?

Posted by JoeyBreak

What counts more: what you say or what you do?

For the purpose of example, let's choose any student at random. If, at the beginning of the term, this student professes to his teacher that he is going to earn an A mark in the course, then obviously the teacher should just give our student that mark? I thank a friend for this analogy but let's take another example.

Let's choose any President of the United States at random. If, before this President is elected, his (because historically no president has been a woman) election platform is based on bringing social change, ending foreign wars, making the government transparent, and reducing nuclear arms, then obviously he should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

In real life, at the end of the term, if the student hasn't earned the A mark, he won't get it. If this is a problem for you, then you have issues with the education system to take up and to that I wish you good luck. If you prefer that all students earn their grade not by what they say they are going to do but by what they actually do (cumulatively over the whole term), then the job title of "teacher" will always be needed and respected. In the case of the President, it would be a great honor to receive the Nobel Peace award before having earned it, as much as it would be to earn the A mark in class in which you only said, "I am going to earn the A mark."

Conversely, the A mark given to a student is a reflection on who their teacher is. If they are willing to give a student an A mark on the condition that the student said, "I am going to earn the A mark," the teacher has done the student a great injustice as he never really had to learn anything in the class. Quite frankly, the student should be ashamed to accept it but the teacher was the one who really missed the mark. Same goes with the "distinguished" Nobel Peace Award: if it can be awarded to anyone for the peaceful things they say they are going to do, the "awardee" has been done an injustice and the "awarder" has missed their mark.

Coincidentally, President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Major "news" media outlet CNN, reports on this event:

"Obama said he viewed the decision less as a recognition of his own accomplishments and more as 'a call to action.'"

Of course he did. He had to view it like "a call to action" because at the time of the nomination, his only real step towards doing what he said he was going to do was win an election. By the time of the award (some six days ago), Barack Obama did have a few accomplishments not to mention the ever-genius Cash-for-Clunkers program.

At the end of my day, I'm just thankful that the Nobel Peace prize is about politics and not morals. In case you're wondering: the world would actually be more peaceful if there wasn't such a dichotomy between the two.