| | I see that the comments so far reflect some of my own thoughts. Yes, of course, it is silly not to admit the reality of failure. Yes, it is a kind of new collectivist ideology to be anti-competitive and schools are the places where you find these excuses for (ahem) "ideas." And yes, there is the shallow view that "self-esteem" comes from never failing or that failing willl "damage" self-esteem. I like to point out that in baseball if you fail to hit the ball 2 times out of 3, you bat .333 and are considered a hitter. We all know that grade inflation is a problem in higher education. We all know of instances when we learned more from failing than from succeeding. A spokesman for the group said it wanted to avoid labelling children. "We recognise that children do not necessarily achieve success first time," he said. "But I recognise that we can't just strike a word from the dictionary," he said.
Sure you could. In 1984 Newspeak they could have called it unpassing. C is passing. D is unpassing. F is plusunpassing. Worst is doubleplusunpassing. It would seem to me that if they want to protect children from the harsh reality of competitive life, rather than not giving low grades, they should cease awarding higher grades. C would be the highest grade, from 70 to 100, inclusive. (Maybe we shouldn't give them ideas....)
|
|