By a schoolteacher, one of the most evil things I've ever read

[JeffS]

That to me sounds like putting the onus for how hard one works to achieve ones goals (and for how well one does personally) onto those doing the evaluating and those you are evaluated against and that is second-handed. Competition isn't. It pushes everyone, even the idiot to realize their own potential.

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, or if we actually agree.

If I look to others and compare myself to how well they have done (e.g. I got an 'A,' but Johnny got a 'C.' Therefore, I'm better than Johnny. I'm valuable.) is that not second-handed? Seems to me it is. Looking to how well others are doing in order to drive my own achievement is putting the onus for how hard I work to achieve my goals on to others. Should Johnny work harder because I got a better grade? Or, rather, should he work harder because he doesn't understand the material? Can I work a little less hard because Johnny has a long way to go before he catches up to me; he has a long way to go before he is any competition? Or should I continue to work hard because learning is important to me and I want to continue to understand the material? Does my self-worth and self-esteem come from being ranked better than Johnny, or does it come from achieving my own personal values?

What's happening is too many are evaluating their own self-worth compared to those around them. What happens when they're surrounded by morons? Yea, I got an "A," but I didn't have to work that hard to get it because Johnny's and idiot. Does that have any value? Just because I can compete against a moron and beat him? Imagine Carl Lewis running in the Special Olympics. If he wins, has he really won?

There is no competition in learning. There's nothing endemic to education which requires there to be winners and losers. You either learn, and know it, or you do not. Grades should be used as feedback to the individual (and perhaps his/her parent(s)) indicating whether the material has been learned. They should be of concern to no one else.

If we extrapolate this into the business world, should I look to Johnny to determine how hard I work? Should I work harder if he outsells me, or should I work as hard as my values dictate I should work? Can I slack off if I sell more than Johnny because, comparatively, my job is safe? Or, rather, should I continue working toward achieving my own values regardless of how well Johnny does?

There can be only one winner, and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is coddling and emotionalizing with the looser to the point where those that don't win see the winner as someone to be derided, and their victories as something to be hidden, ignored.

Well, I can agree with this to a point. If we both received a perfect score on a test, who won? There usually is only one winner, but accolades like Honor Roll don't have limitations on number. Suppose they did? Suppose the roll were limited to only 10 students. What if 11 students had the exact same GPA (or whatever)? What if all of them did?

I have no problem agreeing that there is nothing wrong with there being only one winner. Nor do I believe coddling and emotionalizing with the loser should be done.

[Zip]

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, or if we actually agree.

If I look to others and compare myself to how well they have done (e.g. I got an 'A,' but Johnny got a 'C.' Therefore, I'm better than Johnny. I'm valuable.) is that not second-handed? Seems to me it is. Looking to how well others are doing in order to drive my own achievement is putting the onus for how hard I work to achieve my goals on to others. Should Johnny work harder because I got a better grade? Or, rather, should he work harder because he doesn't understand the material? Can I work a little less hard because Johnny has a long way to go before he catches up to me; he has a long way to go before he is any competition? Or should I continue to work hard because learning is important to me and I want to continue to understand the material? Does my self-worth and self-esteem come from being ranked better than Johnny, or does it come from achieving my own personal values?

What's happening is too many are evaluating their own self-worth compared to those around them. What happens when they're surrounded by morons? Yea, I got an "A," but I didn't have to work that hard to get it because Johnny's and idiot. Does that have any value? Just because I can compete against a moron and beat him? Imagine Carl Lewis running in the Special Olympics. If he wins, has he really won?

There is no competition in learning. There's nothing endemic to education which requires there to be winners and losers. You either learn, and know it, or you do not. Grades should be used as feedback to the individual (and perhaps his/her parent(s)) indicating whether the material has been learned. They should be of concern to no one else.

If we extrapolate this into the business world, should I look to Johnny to determine how hard I work? Should I work harder if he outsells me, or should I work as hard as my values dictate I should work? Can I slack off if I sell more than Johnny because, comparatively, my job is safe? Or, rather, should I continue working toward achieving my own values regardless of how well Johnny does?

Yes we are agreeing. Your achievements should be measured either against the excellent or your own best efforts and achievements. Not against mediocrity or what you "need to get by".

Well, I can agree with this to a point. If we both received a perfect score on a test, who won? There usually is only one winner, but accolades like Honor Roll don't have limitations on number. Suppose they did? Suppose the roll were limited to only 10 students. What if 11 students had the exact same GPA (or whatever)? What if all of them did?

I have no problem agreeing that there is nothing wrong with there being only one winner. Nor do I believe coddling and emotionalizing with the loser should be done.

If we both receive the same perfect score then we both win, in the figurative and personal sense. As long as you agree that scoring is a primarily individual achievement.

If an honour roll demands that a student get 85% to achieve that goal I don't care if there are 1 or 100 people on it, the standard is an objective one. Where it becomes subjective is if the standard is lowered (the marking criteria are lowered) to allow more people to "feel" like winners even though the honour is unearned.

[JeffS]

Yes we are agreeing.

Rockin' good news.