[evoloution]

There has been a shift in conversation over the last years and at least in US they are claiming that the highest variance in student performance can be attributed to socioeconomic status and developmental environment. So it would seem like selecting based on school performance could make things worse. One could make the case that this would really hurt very smart/ high-performing individuals from low socio-economic status families but most people (and rational policy) care about helping/ making an impact at the population level.

[Spooky23]

That’s what people say, because it’s hard to say anything else without hitting narratives that will be interpreted as racist or insensitive for other reasons.

Household culture is a big predictor of outcome. Parental age is another. Asian/Indian kids buck the bigger trend, because those family cultures value education as the way to advance.

Usually these policy discussions get dumbed down into inner-city vs suburbia comparison. But I think we’re starting to see bigger cohorts of white kids from suburban professional backgrounds who are not doing better than their parents.

[TangoTrotFox]

The shift has come, probably not coincidentally, at the same there has been ever more evidence (genetics in particular) that people are indeed inherently different. I think most people are just afraid of considering this possibility since if you apply it in any way whatsoever it leads to either suboptimal solutions or dystopic ones. For instance if you know somebody is unlikely to be able to achieve, do you allow them into e.g. top tier schools, or not? Brave New World or Gattica? Both answers suck.