No, the correct answer to this is "provide free/subsidised schooling to exceptional people who cannot otherwise afford it".

By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people, which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it.

Instead, the SJW/woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... (a.k.a. everybody equal, everybody stupid akin to Communism's everybody equal, everybody poor)

>exceptional people Why would you only provide free/subsidized schooling to exceptional people. Why not all people? If you truly believe in meritocracy, wouldn't you want everyone to have a fair opportunity to prove themselves?

If resources are limited (and they're always limited) you invest into the highest ROI options.

Exceptional people have a chance of pushing society forward (i.e. creating more resources for the future... exponentially).

(But yeah in general I oppose age-segregated schooling, I think education should have "tracks" (math, physics, sports, music, etc.) and people should attend whatever "level" they're at in each track, in mixed-age groups. And make mostly free (but guided) choices regarding which tracks to put most effort in.)

Meritocracy is opposed to egalitarianism.

After all, people with advantages rise to the top, whether that's upbringing, talent, or gene.

I see "egalitarianism" as "equality of opportunity". That, and "equality before the law".

But even with the same starting conditions/talent/upbringing/genes, some people will climb further than others. Effort, creativity, etc. We as society should encourage that and reward people who achieve more, for the common benefit of all.