And that’s a bad thing because? You where receiving exactly the kind of minimum education that was seemingly enough even if your grades where poor.

Remember life doesn’t hold your hand, self motivation is just as important for long term success as innate intelligence. Hand holding the academically gifted to cram as much as possible into young minds has been traded before it doesn’t actually seem to accomplish anything of note beyond excelling in artificial milestones like the Putnam.

Considering how many of todays highly effective knowledge workers where demoralized and demotivated in public school, you are talking about a short term effect. Personally I and many people at know greatly befitted from an easy public school education that enabled me plenty of free time to dive extremely deep into various personal projects. In comparison I took plenty of difficult electives in collage like Differential Equations for the fun of it, but thinking back I would have been better served with more free time.

I still remember coming up with the equivalent of the Bit Torrent algorithm in collage before BT was a thing, and thinking I just don’t have time to build it. In the wider context not a big deal, but don’t assume you can simply ramp things up without any cost.

In your very own example, you went to a private school and did well. That's great, that's what's supposed to happen. What's currently happening in public schools is that too many resources are being allocated to the over achievers and not enough to the under achievers. There's not enough money to fund all programs, so you have to ensure you fund the most needy first.

Let's also mention that education is one of the best ways to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Advanced and higher education shouldn't only be available to those that are wealthy and/or have time to send their kids to extra schooling. Ensuring a high quality education in disenfranchised neighborhoods is one of the best tools we have for helping those people.

No matter how you frame it, I want children getting the best education that they can get. So if they're ready to achieve more, give it to them. We all, as a society, benefit.

Again, the funding is not unlimited. We're sacrificing some less than average students' learning for the sake of the small minority of above average students.

> Let's also mention that education is one of the best ways to climb the socioeconomic ladder.

Currently, that is true. But, does it have to be true? Should the only way to leave poverty be an above average education? There used to be plenty of blue collar jobs that paid a comfortable middle class wage, now there's not. You know the guy that started KFC? Did he go to college? No, he dropped out in the 7th grade. You used to be able to work hard and be successful.

> No matter how you frame it, I want children getting the best education that they can get. So if they're ready to achieve more, give it to them. We all, as a society, benefit.

Not every kid wants or needs more education.

But even if we have unlimited funding for lower education, what's the purpose? The vast majority of society isn't fit for a traditional university education. And even if they are, the vast majority of university students go on to achieve what, exactly?

Sure, some kids might not be able to achieve their dreams, welcome to the club. Is the dream of a life being a scientist or some such any better than the dream of being a professional skier or race car driver? We're not robots, we're people. The obsession with academic excellence has to end.

The fact that my parents had to pay for both the public school and some tuition for private school (I had financial aid) left a really bad taste in my mouth. On top of that, full tuition at the private school was less than the per-student cost of public school! To me, that is ridiculous.