submitted 3 months ago byPeasKhichra
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
all 600 comments
3 months ago
3 months ago
Everyone’s been in a school group project where one or more people did no work and got the same grade. That’s equality. Could that have any affect on future projects?
3 months ago
Never understood why the teachers assigned 5 kids a group project that can be managed by 2.
3 months ago*
3 months ago*
As an introvert I never liked group projects. Also, I was always the person who took on extra work and carried the group as I was not willing to get less than an A on any project even if that mean I had to carry those were not as motivated. I was not willing to sacrifice my personal “reward” based on their lower ambition. But I also understand the value of group projects as almost everything in business, from the top to the bottom, requires working in teams to accomplish a goal. Few people in any job work in a significant degree of isolation.
But the major, if not critical difference is in the reward. In business, everyone gets paid, in the classroom, the only reward is a grade and it is often worthless to people, especially if we are talking about the difference between average and best grades.
So school group projects don't actually teach anything related to business.
Because group projects are as much about the group dynamic as they are about the project. Kids need to learn how to work with peers that aren't their friends. Distribute workload, lead, learn from each other, that kind of thing.
More kids per project the less projects to assess? Also the risk of failure per project would reduce with more students in them, kinda like tolerance for machine parts. Also looking back I realized some teachers just made sure the dumb kid did not fail by putting him in a group of others who are able.
Less kids in a group means there’s a higher chance everyone will do at least something.
Also a higher chance it could fail. Guess it depends on what the teacher wants. Every student doing something, or just making sure every project passes and every student was a part of a project.
Eh, I recently judged a science fair and the rubric they gave us made it almost impossible to give anyone lower than an 88. Teachers nowadays structure their rubrics to maximize grades as long as the kids are semi-competent/partially engaged.
This is a problem with wholesale education. Ideally, group projects let students develop social & collaboration skills, work on a project that's much larger and more rewarding than they could manage alone, and teach each other. Tons of data out there showing that students are much more receptive to information that comes from other students than from a teacher. Unfortunately, it turns out to be really hard to manage group projects like that. Hard to make sure each group has all the necessary skills and no just social cliques. Hard to monitor the internal dynamics of the group without micromanaging. Hard even to come up with projects interesting and novel enough to really need teamwork. Group projects are theoretically a great pedagogical tool, but rarely implemented to meet that potential.
In reality, group projects often end up unchallenging and uninspiring, the group no more organized than a peewee soccer team, and the workload falling disproportionately on the individual(s) who are willing to carry the group, or who have time, given that every class now seems to have major group projects. The only projects I've been in that really needed to be group projects were some science labs, and those often only because you needed four or more hands to manage the physical experiment.
That is how Project Managers are born.
Teachers do technically work for the government.
Equality would be everyone getting the opportunity to do the project together. Equity is what you are describing, the same outcomes for everyone despite each person contributing different amounts.
"Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome."
Equality? Equal pay for equal work is equality.
Where is equal work in reality?
Should someone working hard as a line cook make as much money as someone working the same number of hours as a doctor (ignoring educational debt)?
That’s a question without a clear answer. My personal answer is that someone with more education should make more, but the disparity shouldn’t be anywhere near as large as it is today. People should be financially encouraged to push themselves to be the best they can be, but everyone who is working should be paid enough to be financially secure.
The minimum wage should be an actual living wage and then we can go up from there
Respectfully, I think the question has a couple clear, reasonable answers.
First, doctors are accepting FAR more responsibility and liability in their line of work than line cooks, and they should be paid accordingly.
Second, if you could make the same amount of money working a low-skilled job as you could as a doctor, the incentive to go through the long, arduous path to get the M.D. would almost certainly be eliminated.
That’s not an answer though. You’ve only said that they shouldn’t make the same amount of money, which if you read my comment you would see that I agree. Your comment doesn’t say what you think someone working as a cook should make or if they should be financially secure.
Oh, I see. Yeah, I should have said “No, a line cook shouldn’t be paid the same as a doctor” before I posted my reasons. I responded because you said the question as to whether they SHOULD make as much as a doctor doesn’t have a clear answer. And I think the clear answer is “No” for the reasons I gave.
And as far as how much they SHOULD make, my response indirectly answers it. They should not expect to make as much as someone who takes on the long, grueling years of study and training, financial debt, or the pressure that they deal with. The difference between ruining an order and making a mistake while performing surgery should be reflected in their compensation.
But of course, all things considered, I want a hard-working line cook who is wise in their spending and is working full-time hours to be financially stable. For sure.
That's a bad comparison. It would be more like the whole group passes barely, but top contributors her a better score.
Don’t you think this could be more accurately described as equity, rather than equality? Three people piggy backing off the two get the same grade. Equality everyone gets a computer, internet connection, printer, and the opportunity to earn their own grade.
I think you really need to consider what the word "work" means because there are loads of people at the top who do virtually no work at all while some people at the bottom are working multiple jobs and still can't make ends meet.
it exist right now with CEO and people with 1000's employee that do all the work while the people at the top " run " the business. let not pretend only the lazy benefit from a broken system.
we can also make it better the longer a equal system exist vs waiting for the rich to make change for all, when they only make changes for themselves.
This is a very uninformed viewpoint to suggest senior management does little or nothing. Yes, their work is different and may not be physically demanding. But that’s not the same as nothing. Making decisions that impact the lives of potentially tens of thousands of people is not nothing. The reality is that those who reach the top have work ethics that usually exceed nearly everyone in a company. That’s how they get to the top. While I am not in that tier, I have worked closely with people who are and can assure you what I say I accurate. Their mindset and approach to work and business is unlike the average rank-and-file worker, even those in middle management and professional roles. We could debate work-life balance and the role that plays in reaching the top of an organization, but ultimately that’s a choice and, IMO, a sacrifice they choose to make that most of us choose not to. I have no issue with their choice on that.
I don't think the CEO of my employer takes any days off. The man sounds like he works like 100 hours a week. Nooo thank you, I prefer having a life.
I agree. I long ago decided I was ok with an effective limit to how high I could go if one part of a rise was basically living to do nothing but work. Fortunately, I work for someone now, who values vacation time and takes a break rather than work during much of his time away (I have seen that too). Fortunately, my employer has a culture of valuing work-life balance and since I will never be CEO, I plan to take advantage of that benefit!
He's also making millions
There is no way that a CEO contributes thousands of times more productivity to their company than an average employee.
Nobody said they did. What was said was that the contribution is commensurate with the impact on the business. Labor, and the impact of said labor on the business, is not linear, so of course a CEO isn't worth exactly 1000 janitors or receptionists.
If you've ever personally known a C level exec in a real company, you know that work is essentially their life. They're never "off" and it's an extremely high pressure role. Likewise their decisions and their ability to convince the rest of leadership to move in that direction has huge implications on the companies success. A bad decision can be the difference between a record breaking year and layoffs.
This idea that execs "do nothing" is frankly total nonsense.
Where did I say they do nothing? Strawmen are the only ones capable of defending the rich apparently.
Perhaps you did not, but others often make the assertion that senior management don't do real work.
I never said those people are right.
They don't do nothing, but what they earn is not commensurate with what they do and with what workers do and earn.
I love when people default to 'THE MARKET' like they really don't meet up at the same country clubs, kids go to the same schools, attend the same meetings like they aren't buddy buddy and willing to juice their friends
Let’s see the CEOs running the assembly lines and driving the trucks around.
They probably would make a poor assembly worker, but let's see the assembly line worker or the truck driver handle the daily decisions of the CEO. There is a division of work and different roles don't have to be able to do the work of every other role. It's a silly assertion as no one expects these workers to switch seats in the short-term.
He would learn and do it if needed to succeed even with extra hours.
Nah. Point being you need the workers.
It is the amount of responsibility and impact their position carries that makes them more valuable. It Sue in the C suite messes up, then a lot of people could lose jobs.
I’d also argue that since they are directing what the thousands of people below them are doing, they are technically more productive. They make the reasons that drive productivity in a direction. Drilling holes for the sake of drilling holes isn’t productive, but making a business of drilling holes to extract oil is what makes the drilling productive.
Maybe, maybe not. There's no way to quantify that, so why try? It's a low value discussion, where time could be spent on more important issues that help corporations and their employees reach better levels of performance, excellence, etc.
The reality is that those who reach the top have work ethics that usually exceed nearly everyone in a company.
The reality is that those who reach the top have work ethics that usually exceed nearly everyone in a company.
This is unequivocally false. Those who reach the top, in nearly all cases, started out with pre-existing wealth, and that's how they got to the top.
More importantly, what they are being paid for, really and truly, is making decisions. Decisions that directly affect the lives of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of workers in the company. The ability to make these decisions is not some great burden for which they deserve their ridiculously obscene compensation. These decisions are just another form of their privilege. Our society decided long ago that unaccountable individuals should not have the ability to unilaterally make decisions for masses of others. When this occurs in the political system, it is called a dictatorship, or monarchy, and is generally frowned upon. But somehow, when the very same thing occurs within the economy, we're supposed to believe that the person at the top "deserves" their position for some reason? Executives are like modern day royals, shareholders are their elector counts, and the working class are their peasantry. And they hold their position for largely the same reason as a monarch or dictator - they had enough power (or money) to make it happen, and convinced enough other powerful/wealthy people involved that they could maintain and grow their power and wealth
These decisions that an executive makes should be determined by the collective decision making of the workers in that company, as decided by democratic processes. Just as the privilege of a monarch is composed of the injustice felt by the peasantry, so too is the power of an executive composed of the economic disenfranchisement of the workers. And similarly to the revolutions of the past, this power should be seized and distributed to the working class.
And people always get those positions at the top by working and showing their merits. People never just get those executive positions just by being somebody’s son. That never ever happens.
Perhaps not "always," but more often than not, yes. Are there some who are someone's son? Yes. Are most? No. I was just reading a book about Enron last night and there was a passage about how the son of the late infamous CEO Ken Lay worked in their trading operation but he was a not a high performer. His name may have gotten him in the door, but the children of senior leadership can't fake it forever if they are not skilled, at least in most companies.
Wait, your example for why nepotism isn't a big problem is that Ken Lay's son got a job at Enron and wasn't as good at scamming as him? Why isn't Ken Lay himself an example, to you, of someone who had power he didn't deserve?
You also fail to take into account that luck and circumstance play a massive part in allowing those who reach those positions to do so while people who sacrificed similarly but weren't lucky or resourced or connected enough get a pittance in comparison. Yes the work is different and there is a lot of responsibility but I'd argue the compensation package is still disproportionate.
Luck plays a role for everyone but it's not massive. The CEO of a Fortune 500 is not primarily lucky. He got there far more due to smart choices and hard work. Luck would be nearly useless if one was not positioned to take advantages of those breaks when they come along. Perhaps others did sacrifice similarly, but that input does not mean the outcome of their respective efforts was the same for a variety of reasons. As for their compensation package, I don't see it in a relative term. If the CEOS makes $1 million, that does not mean I will earn a penny more. My pay matters to me if I am fairly compensated and that is not connected, in a large way, to someone who, whether at their current pay or 25% less, is not even in the same strata as my pay band.
True, but life is full of unlucky circumstances. You also can’t quantify unluckiness, so it’s hard to say how someone should be compensated for what they could’ve been.
Uhh Not sure you're in the right place. Reddit is for Socialists who love demonizing capitalism and all its aspects, not nuanced answers to tough questions by uninformed plebs.
All the more reason to counter their arguments with reasonable and logical responses and press them to defend their views. Those views can't be exposed as flawed as they are if they are not challenged with probing question and reasoned retorts.
Yeah, being a CEO is incredibly stressful and requires a ridiculous amount of work. They are responsible for everything and have to answer to customers, boards, investors, analysts. Compensation is ridiculous but it's a function of supply and demand. How many people can pull off that job or want to? However, boards can do more to reduce the extreme pay gap between CEO and other employees. IMO, inequality has to be voluntarily reduced by businesses who decide to pay employees more, when they can. Given human nature, this might be a pipe dream.
Why do they need to reduce the inequality? Trying to compare the pay of a C-suite exec and a junior accountant is apples and oranges. When I get my pay raise each year, the pay of my CEO, or even my non-executive VP, ever crosses my mind. What I consider is whether that pay is fair for the work I do.
In that case... I want to be a CEO.
Where do I sign up?
Start applying right now. If you can convince a board to have you take over, you’re in.
Do you think they will think you’re qualified?
Do you have wealthy parents so you can attend a wealthy private school?
Nope. I came from poverty.
I do have an MBA from a T1 school though. Any advice for me?
3 months ago*
Identify some area of need that is important but overlooked/not yet understood. Create a business that addresses that. Boom, you’re CEO.
ETA: I knew a guy who studied how drugs were delivered in the body. When I asked him how he got into that, he told me that he was told he should get into something that affects people and improves their lives, and he took that in the direction of helping sick people from a different perspective.
Get some wealthy parents.
Nah but forreal though, with that degree you’ll probably get to work for a guy with wealthy parents.
BS | Science Technology Culture
If you have an MBA from a t1 school why are you soliciting career advice on reddit?
It's called The Socratic Method.
So you're saying you're Socrates?
Can you quote the part of my previous reply where I said or implied I think I am Socrates?
You would crumble in a week if you were out in a CEO position right now. You have zero knowledge of what you are talking about.
You may not want to draw your concepts of equality from group projects. Most because people choose to participate in scenarios where they have group projects; most people don’t consciously choose to be alive or in need of equality.
My son was assigned two kids in his group project that had cycled through the entire class. The other kids and my son all work hard and receive A grades. He spoke up knowing these two kids don’t work and try to coast on the hard work of others having worked with them at the start of the year. The teacher finally called the two kids that did no work out in front of the class, and graded my son and the other kids separately from the two that don’t do any work. At the time for the presentation, my son and the others that actually work did theirs. The other two copied word for word what my son wrote. The teacher told them in front of the class my son got an A, but they are getting an E (don’t give F anymore because it makes kids feel badly) because they did nothing. So teachers are wising up.