The point is that I'd be content if government served the general case of population well. Super-bright kids are a special case there will be less harm to society should they be under-developed.
I know that's horribly utilitarian of me but I'm just being pragmatic.
Comments
Do you think it's reasonable or fair to expect the public school system to be the ones to develop an extraordinary child?
How many resources should they apply to the top 2% of children?
> How many resources should they apply to the top 2% of children?
Resources spend on the cleverest kids will probably provide a bigger return on investmant than for other kids, so about 5%
Yes. If they don't, who should? The parents? Many parents are completely useless (or worse); should we just write off their children?
The point is that I'd be content if government served the general case of population well. Super-bright kids are a special case there will be less harm to society should they be under-developed.
I know that's horribly utilitarian of me but I'm just being pragmatic.