, ,

College Republican, Katie Pavlich wrote a smart letter to the editor in today’s issue of the Daily Wildcat:

Preventing rich from getting rich will remove incentive to succeed

In response to Friday’s column “Rich no more ‘deserving’ of wealth than the rest of us,” I am going to present Taylor Kessinger along with the UA population of students with a simple scenario they can understand, rather than countering every point Kessinger made about the rich not being deserving of what they earn.

If Kessinger truly believes that the rich are no more deserving of the wealth they earn than the rest of us, I think he should support the statement that students with 4.0 GPAs are no more deserving than those with a lower GPAs. So why not spread the GPAs around? Those in the 3.5-4.0 range will be deducted one point, students in the 3.0-3.4 range will be deducted half a point, and those below a 3.0 will not be deducted points at all and will actually be given half a point. This way everyone can be equal and feel good about themselves; after all, those who worked hard to get those 4.0s aren’t really deserving of them right? I’m sure this will really motivate all students to do well in school. It’s only fair! Right?

This is the same situation with the “rich.” If you punish people for their success, whether it is how much money they make or what GPA they earn, it does not stimulate production. Why would someone study hard to get an “A” in all their classes when they will end up with a lower grade regardless of how much work they put in?

The students who are fine with getting “C”s will not work any harder to attain “A”s because they are automatically given half a point from the hard work of 3.5-4.0 students. Eventually, all students will end up at the same C level, no one will work hard, and no one will succeed in getting a decent GPA.

Katie Pavlich, journalism junior