This morning I watched one of the powerful debates featured on Fox and Friends (usually I can’t stand these). Their subject was that of the lowering the difficulty of standardized testing. On one side, you had a guy saying the test aren’t tough enough and there needs to be some measure of competency. On the other side, you had a guy that agreed the tests were not difficult, but that they shouldn’t exist because of how it stigmatizes the student. Now, listen to this man’s logic. He thinks that the tests prevent people from receiving their diploma, which will then go on to lead to job and family issues. He is advocating that the student merely receives a diploma regardless of merit in order to prevent the cost to society that results from the absence of a diploma. If everyone gets a diploma, it negates its value. Basically, it will be certificate of reaching the age of 18. Now, I don’t disagree with the assertion that a lack of diploma will make things difficult, but I happen to think that the factors that prohibited the reception of the diploma may actually be the real factor. It could be a lack of motivation, poor education, or poor environment to name a few. Surely these factors, regardless of a piece of paper, contribute greater to the proclivity of one to lead a life of crime.
I would also like to extend this man’s logic further. If the lack of a diploma contributes to a difficult life, doesn’t the lack of a college degree do the same. If we want everyone to have a “diploma” lifestyle, shouldn’t we also want everyone to have a “degree” lifestyle. And, why stop there, why not a masters or doctorate. When you eliminate the merit of achieving something, that something suddenly becomes nothing, and nothingness is the design of the left.