> B. There is more aggregate value in having everyone do a bit better than having an occasional student who's amazing and pampered. Especially if they then proc

> B. There is more aggregate value in having everyone do a bit better than having an occasional student who's amazing and pampered. Especially if they then proceed to go leave and never interact with the local economy again. It's not that easy. For a well-functioning society it is indeed better to invest educational resources broadly to have everyone do a bit better. However, in many scientific disciplines (and especially in areas such as mathematics and theoretical physics) it seems most progress comes from a small number of high impact individuals (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Feynman etc). Thus, for robust scientific progress you should actually direct your educational resources towards the most promising kids. Ultimately then your preferred distribution of educational resources depends on your values. If you care more for scientific progress than for social issues, then it is rational to favor targeted rather than broad spending of educational resources. I personally do care about both, but faced with a choice I'd go for scientific progress because ultimately advances in science, technology and medicine prove to be the best way to reduce human suffering.