There’s this story going around the internet – what story isn’t – about a
professor who is teaching his students about socialism. Although, he’s not
really teaching them socialism because this is not what socialism is. Anyway,
it’s passed around by people who don’t believe in welfare programs and figure
that it’s okay to let children starve. Here it is and the problems with
this experiment, which by the way, never actually happened. It’s just a made up
story. You can also check it out at snopes.
An
economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student
before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that
socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a
great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this
class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the
same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were
happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little
had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free
ride too; so tey studied little ...
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled
around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame,
name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone
else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that
socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the
reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or
succeed.
Okay, sounds pretty clear, doesn’t it. If there’s no reward
then no one does the work. I can’t argue with that. I know that people need
rewards.
But the experiment isn’t based on reality. You have a group of students who all have
several things in common. They all are there because they believe in some form
of education. Otherwise they wouldn’t be there. They all have the same chance
at success. There’s no barriers to any of them. Sure, a couple of them may have
a learning disability which they’ve learned to cope with, a couple more may
have kids that make it harder to do the work, and quite a few of them have
jobs, and one has an insane school workload and another is serving on various school committees which
limits their time, but overall, these students are all equal and have roughly
the same chance.
Now if you want to make this experiment more like life, then
the professor would have to divide the students up into groups. Group A has no
limitations. Group B can only use research found within the college itself.
Group C isn’t allowed to use the school library. Group D can’t talk to any one
about their research, so no interviews or outside help. Group E can’t use computers at all but they are still
expected to hand in a type written assignment. Group F can’t use their hands. Group G can’t start work on their papers until
the day before it’s due. Group H will
not get an A or a B no matter what they do.
Unfair? Yep. That’s life. Obviously those that are in
limited groups are going to have far more obstacles than those who have less
limitations and certainly Group A has the best chance of success.
What is often seen in life, is that Group A will be very
critical of Group H for not getting an A and naturally Group H is resentful of
Group A’s success and if they can’t succeed it would be equally natural for
them to give up trying.
In the above scenario, if everyone is graded together then
naturally they will not succeed.
Unless they help each other.
That does not mean that those who have plenty do the work of
those who don’t, but it does mean that they offer help and try and bridge the
gaps that exist.
The truth is, that we expect so much more from people who
have little than we do from people that have a lot. Why is that?
Baby A (lets call him Rich) is born to parents who come from
a long line of wealth. Dad went to Harvard, Mom went to Columbia. There are
servants, private schools, trips to Europe and lessons in horseback riding,
tennis, and foreign languages.
Baby B, Tom, is born to a single mom (recently divorced) who
works making minimum wage. He goes to the local school and when he comes home
there really isn’t any place to do his homework because there’s too much noise
and distraction in the small apartment which he shares with his Mom and
sisters.
When Rich graduates from high school he gets into Harvard
because his dad went there. Rich struggled in school, but his parents were able
to hire a private tutor to help him through it. Rich parties and at one point
he gets arrested but charges are dropped because of connections that his dad
has. Eventually Rich graduates and instantly gets a job in his Dad’s company
which he doesn’t have to apply for. When Rich decides he doesn’t want to work
there, his Dad calls up one of his Harvard Frat friends and finds Rich a job in
a company that’s better suited to Rich. When Rich gets married Mom and Dad
present Rich and his new wife with a brand new house as a wedding present.
Tom manages to get through high school as well, even though
he also works at a part time job to help support the family. His grades suffer
because of his outside job that takes up so much of his time and he doesn’t
have many options as far as college. He can’t afford college anyway and he
doesn’t dare take out a loan. Mom taught him not to get into debt. It would just be another bill to pay. When
the store that he works at closes down, he can’t find another job. He goes from
place to place but his clothes are a little rough, or he doesn’t have the
skills, or he doesn’t have enough education.
Tom doesn`t have connections to get a job. No one wants to give him a
chance because there are shinier kids out there with better prospects. Tom decides to go to a different city for a
chance so he hitchhikes to a different town, but things aren`t better for him
there, and he ends up sleeping on park benches asking for hand outs. Meanwhile,
his mom has lost her job and can`t help him.
Sure these stories are cliché, but that`s because they
happen.
And yet people will criticize Tom for not doing better and
admire Rich for succeeding. Rich would have had to screw up badly to not succeed
and Tom would have had to be an extraordinary individual with a lot of luck to
achieve a fraction of what was handed to Rich.
So back to the experiment. Without help everyone in that
class will fail, not because there`s no reward to those who have no
limitations, but because it`s impossible to succeed when you don`t have the
tools of success. The only way for the class to succeed is to ditch the "every
man for himself” mentality and work together. Will there be slackers? Of
course. There’s always slackers. But there are enough people who will work so that the
slackers don’t heavily influence the outcome.
And the reward for the stars? Well, certainly they don’t get
any better grade than anyone else in this class, but if any of them need a
letter of recommendation, who is the teacher going to give it to? The ones who
earned the A’s because he knows who they are. In fact if there’s anything those
A students need from that teacher, they will be likely to get it. The work and
study skills carry over to other classes as well where they will be rewarded
for their efforts. And let’s not forget the lessons they will have learned by
helping others.
In the end, we all get rewarded for our efforts even if it
isn’t immediate, because the one that passes out the rewards, does know us
best.