In a pair of columns (here and here), Ashley Herzog describes a very interesting test that was presented to college students by the Young America's Foundation (yaf.org). They asked students what they thought of a policy that would distribute grades more evenly, taking points earned by strong students and giving them to other students that hadn't done as well. The response from the college students was near-universal opposition, even to the point of disbelief.

Herzog, herself a college student, then points out that while professors may expound on the virtues of socialism, that's not how they run their classrooms. Most, in fact, are rather pointed about the necessity to work and produce results in order to earn a good grade. Herzog challenges them to announce a grade redistribution scheme on the first day of class:

See how many students continue to show up to your pompously boring lectures about how America is a colonialist oppressor. See how many complete the assigned readings or study for tests. You’ll either have to force students to do those things—just as the Soviets had to force people to work on disastrously inefficient “collective farms”—or you’ll have to watch as your class deteriorates due to lack of productivity.

But, as the students themselves say, "Earning money is not the same as earning grades." Really? How? I'd like to ask a few questions of those who took YAF's test: Why bother to get good grades if the money you earn at your high-paying job is just going to someone who didn't do as well in college, or who didn't go to college at all? Are you working hard in college for yourself, or for the privilege of working later on for someone else? If the latter, what's the problem with giving up part of your grades now? Anybody? Come on, hands in the air, people!