There's a catch in it as well, which is that you cannot really identify a genius up-front. A genius is, by definition, someone who thinks differently. A lot of people think differently. But the thing with the genius is that he thinks differently and correctly. The latter part won't be obvious until after the fact.
When Alex Ferguson started out as a Manchester United manager he probably already was a genius, but it wasn't obvious until many years later.
Same with Sergey Brin and Larry Page. They probably had a genius vision for the company right from the start. But it's only in retrospect that we recognize that it was, in fact, a genius vision.
Finding a genius is, I think, almost by definition, impossible.
He was just a good man-manager in what is a sea of managerial mediocrity - football management is largely restricted to ex-pro-footballers who can't do anything else. Rinus Michels was a genius, Arrigo Sacchi was a genius - they actually advanced the sport.
It's an interesting counterfactual: without Page, when would Page Rank have come around? The idea that the stationary distribution of a Markov Chain (under certain conditions) is given by the eigenvector to the (largest) eigenvalue 1 is certainly decades old, if not a century.
That seems inconsistent with reports that they tried to sell early to Yahoo! for $2m.
The failure is that mediocre students which come from an environment which helps them (good school, private tutors, stable home life) can be successful, while "naturally gifted" yet disadvantaged students don't.
The basic fact that parental income is still the best predictor of educational achievement should tell you everything you need to know.
I think you have rephrased what I said to again push the idea that it's a zero sum game. If mediocre students can be successful, given the right educational inputs (for some definition of 'successful' and 'mediocre'), isn't this a huge opportunity? Perhaps we should improve society as well as social justice by trying to promote mediocre students from poorer backgrounds to this same level of success, rather than by working on the problem of undiscovered genius.
> The basic fact that parental income is still the best predictor of educational achievement should tell you everything you need to know.
My whole point is that this does not tell you everything you need to know. If low-parental-income and high-parental-income students had exactly the same potential to succeed, the fact that parental income is a good predictor of achievement might be telling you either (or any combination) of two things: that wealthier students are achieving beyond what should be expected (and so we are ending up with incompetent people in very senior positions because they did not get them on merit), or that poorer students are achieving below where they should be (and so we are wasting the potential of talented people). These are really different problems! And probably have quite different solutions.
Two other hypotheses are that the money itself is not important, but rather the familial transmission of certain cultural traits (which also often lead to high incomes), and/or that, similarly, the causal factor is genetic transmission of some cognitive or personality traits. Note that a factor being genetic does not mean it is immutable - for instance, there could be a genetic factor that leads to students doing poorly in school because they are intolerant of sitting still for hours in desks, which would become irrelevant if one stopped requiring them to sit still for hours.
A mistaken idea of the causal explanation for the correlation with income would lead to interventions that don't actually work.
Is that controlled for genetic influence though? Suppose smart people 1) have high income, 2) have smart kids.
Disentangling the various causal factors is substantially harder than your quote above suggests.
However, isn't it possible that giving great teaching resources to people who aren't already at the top level in terms of raw talent, allows them to succeed at a very high level? If so, it's not a zero sum game - the 'averagely clever people who have received great tuition' and who go on to succeed might be a sign of the education system working, not its failure. We might focus more on making sure a wider group of 'averagely clever people' get such good tuition, rather than on the finding and promotion of undiscovered geniuses.
Two examples that I often think about in this context: firstly the Budapest school of mathematics in the early 20th century. A hugely disproportionate number of the world-class mathematicians from that era were directly taught by Fejer and/or part of his seminar and mentee group. (He stands out as a supervisor to a far greater extent then any mathematicians stands out from the pack for his own achievements.) Is it possible that while one or two of this group might have been 'born geniuses', it also includes several who might otherwise have been second-rate, but who became world-class because of the influence both of Fejer and of their high-performing colleagues?
Secondly, George Harrison of the Beatles. In the second half of the Beatles' recording career, he wrote some of their best-loved songs, several of which are regarded as absolute classics. Did the Beatles happen to contain three inherently gifted songwriters, by sheer coincidence? Or is it more likely that working for a decade alongside two extremely talented and successful songwriters nurtured and elevated Harrison far beyond what might otherwise have been expected?