>>11176812I mostly agree with what you said, but I think you're confused as well.
When you drag science down to include the lowest common denominator(s), you're bottle-necking it's potential to that end.
Of course everyone should have the ability and opportunity to ascend in mathematics, but those things would be best served to those who'd actually achieve more.
It's a balancing act, and the more you can assess a person the more they should obviously be rewarded.
An ideal system wouldn't cater to wealth, race, or status. Simply how well you produce results, or even how well you could cooperate results, if you like.
Its a balancing act of course.
But obviously those who underperform should not be further rewarded, that would be madness.
