I'm thinking we don't actually disagree as much as we think we do, there are just a lot of misconceptions flying around. On a semi-related note (completely shifting the tone of the conversation here) when you say that sentiment that I have quoted, do you mean to say that you don't want everyone to have an equal education and an equal opportunity in general, or do you mean you don't want them to have it if it means a worse education and less opportunities for the people at the top?

Indeed, that's why I've found this whole thing quite frustrating <.<
I'm on the same page as you, just a different subsection >.>

But yeah, shit's bound to get confusing on the internet.

I'll elaborate more and hopefully it will explain.

I think that everyone should be entitled to a good education, regardless of background. I'm not a fan of private schooling, simply because it denies a better education to people based on their financial status. The Etonian club in the UK parliament is quite a damning indicator of this, (All the powerful people in the current government went to the same two private schools barring one or two of them. Most were even in the same class IIRC) What I would like to see instead is a high quality standard schooling offered to everyone, with a more advanced schooling offered to people based on their merit/abilities rather than the wealth of their parents.

That's as likely to happen as pigs flying, so I tend to settle for the middle ground. Which is seperating the brightest students and giving them more challenging work, it's not discrimination to the poor or the stupid but encouraging the growth and achievement of the truly capable.

So whilst I'm obviously for a good education for everyone, I would like to see those at the top given additional time and support to make them into giants rather than keeping them in the homogenous mass and leaving them to turn out just better than average.

Private schooling does this, by only accepting the best and the brightest but the bitch of a catch is - They only let those in who can afford to pay their extortionate fees. Which would bankrupt most lower class families or leave them with a mountainous debt rivalling that of a university fee.

So I'd like to see a socialistic approach to cultivating those with the highest potential without necessarily trampling down those who just plain aren't.

And of course the typical argument is that intelligence shows in different people in different ways, which is of course true, but if someone is clearly an academic then that should be enough of a signifier that they would benefit from advanced schooling instead of someone who learns practically who would be best applied to something in the artisan lines of work <.<