This is really a stupid comparison. GPAs are limited to a 4 point maximum. There is no law or tradition that limits people's wealth to $4. If I only had $4 I sure as hell wouldn't give any of it away. Bullshit thread IMO.
This experiment is not all that revealing. I bet the students would be very much in favor of taking GPA points from the very top students and distributing them, just don't touch their own points. Put the survey this way." Would you be in favor of raising the median GPA level of the student body by taking points from those who are in the upper 5% and distributing them to those in need?" If necessary, have the campus newspaper run a few articles like "Professors Concerned About Inequality in GPAs" and " Administration Vows To Address GPA Disparity Problem." Have a few interviews with sympathetic students who lost out on jobs or grad school because of low GPAs and then suffered some sort of horrible disaster. Have the victims ask " Why do we have to suffer just so a few can brag about graduating Magna?"
Bullshit statement IMO. Let me help you out 4.0 equals those making the top say 1% of income... now go to 3.9 probably equal to 3%... etc.. start mapping the percent with those grades to the percent with the income level.
I don't think this analogy is useful, as the top GPA holders are, presumably, unable to change the rules of GPA awarding.
Under the Constitution those without land could not vote, so they could not vote to redistribute wealth to themselves. There was also no income tax as most would say that income was property and that an income tax would have been considered a theft of property. So when liberals and socialists and commies can get their greedy hands on something by violating the constitution there is no reason to presume your property or income or GPA or family is safe. The price of liberty, the safety of your family (and your GPA) is vigilance.
So the landless could not vote to get some land, how convenient for... not them. It was "established" in another thread that the law of nature, eg. the big fish eats the little fish, was the right and proper course of things. So, should we observe that little fish school up and prey on big fish, well, that's ok too. That's the system without rules. If you make up rules, make them fair or that's what we're going back to.
You don't have to be able to vote to get land. You just have to WORK AND FUCKING EARN IT Ricky. In fact at times the federal government gave land away.
It was you who said that big fish eating small fish was the way of the world, and you also agreed that it was therefore ok for little fish to school and eat big fish.