One of my dreams has been to be a teacher. I interviewed for a job in Center County Pa with the plan to attend the local university and finally complete my degree and then proceed to teach at such a fine learning center. I have thought about substituting in the local school system just for the chance to teach. I like kids. I like talking to them, I find them exciting especially when they are learning something new. I have real life experiences I think would be entertaining and educational.

I was thinking about this last night and came up with a plan I would like to try. I know I can never do it, but it sure would be interesting to see the results.

I was always a little interested in socialism/communism and found it "nice" in the sense that it sure would be "nice" if we all had free health care, we all had a "nice" house, we all had job security, you know, all of the "nice" things in life that other people have but most of us don't. (I'm getting to a point here so hang on)

Oddly enough, the older I get the more I think it is a matter of personal responsibility if you are successful. It's a matter of choices made and hard work and that it's your responsibility, not "Big Government" to provide for you and your family. So here is the experiment I propose that would pit capitalism vs. socialism in a controlled environment to see what produced the "best" result. The goal would be to produce a student best equipped for success. The measure of success would be 1) the overall average of the class and 2) which grouped produced the highest test scores on the final exam.

I propose a triple study. The requirements would be for to teach 3 groups of students the same curriculum and then exam the final result. For best results, I nominate Dr. Mike Adams to teach all three classes. I feel he has the integrity to fairly administer this test although I would welcome a second test group by any other professor.

All three groups would be subjected to identical curriculum, identical homework, and identical testing. The only variation would be in the grading.

Our first group would receive a grade based upon their individual average over the course of the semester.

The second group would have the homework and testing averaged for the class and all students would receive the same "average" grade regardless of individual score. In fact, the minimum grade they can receive on any project whether they complete it or not would be a 2.0

Our last group would receive their individual grades, subject to the 2.0 minimum but have the ability to "donate" a portion of their grade, on a weekly basis to other less fortunate students. (I know this is in reference to an old Republican joke but I would like to see the results) Each week the student would be given a sheet with their weekly grade and a line to "donate" a portion of that grade to those less fortunate.

If the liberal side of the house is correct then the second group should fare just as well, if not better, than the first group. Although 5%-10% of the students of the second group will undoubtedly have a lower grade than they would have originally earned the overall average of the second group should exceed the overall average of the first group. If we are to believe the enlightened left then the third group should also fare better than the first group because the "enlightened" students will most certainly be willing to give up their fair share for the common good. The high achievers will work just as hard (they are enlightened after all) and the lower achievers will work harder since they know they are going to be "helped" by those more fortunate than they. This will surely encourage them to work even harder. Certainly today's college students are enlightened and sympathetic to the plight of their less fortunate students and will happily give as they are able to those in need.

If I am correct the first group will have its typical grouping of high achievers, a larger group of fairly well educated students, and a smattering of those that are wasting Mom and Dads retirement. Overall the group will do well and I would also bet the top 10% of the class will outscore the top 10% of group 2 and 3 on the final exam.

The second group will slowly degrade into a morass from which it will be a minor miracle that the class average is within a whole grade point of group 1 or 3. I predict that the majority of the students will fail to do any homework at all, since why bother we get a passing grade anyway and not even bother to study for any exams since we get a passing grade just for filling in our name correctly or even incorrectly for that matter. The tendency will be for the group to just plug along and any high achievers won't even bother since they will never receive the grade they actually achieve and knowing that they will not strive as much as they would have otherwise.

The third group is a toss up. I would like to think the results would be in line with the first group with a similar scattering of grades and that the "lucky few" will not contribute greatly to the overall good. In fact, I would like to add a change to the third group (although I would prefer a 4th group to test this theory out on I won't get greedy). I would take away 40% of the grade of those with a 3.8 or higher, 30% of the grade for 3.5, 20% of the grade of a 3.0 and apply those points to those with a 2.2 or lower. you should also allow those with a low grade to "decline" the initial donation from the more fortunate students since it might push them out of the final "gift" bracket and even push them into a "tax" bracket. I have an idea how that would turn out but who knows.

So here is my challenge to some fine university. Would someone volunteer to put this scenario into reality? What group of enlightened students would volunteer for this challenge? I see a group of young Republicans taking the first group challenge against what group of liberal students to make up group 2 and 3. Any takers? Would some group of college students be willing to prove this wicked conservative wrong?