I don't agree with his approach for a few reasons: 1) The 145 cutoff seems arbitrary. A kid at 135 doesn't get help? Plus constantly speaking about a number

I don't agree with his approach for a few reasons: 1) The 145 cutoff seems arbitrary. A kid at 135 doesn't get help? Plus constantly speaking about a number feels a little uncomfortable on the side of elitism. 2) Poverty is not mentioned as a problem to address. Roughly there are 40,000 people in the US this smart - living below the poverty line. Can you imagine the boost if they all hit potential? 3) And crime? We've got thousands of criminals with an IQ >= 145. And as De Niro said, they're not doin' thrill-seeker liquor store holdups with a "Born to Lose" tattoo on their chest. 4) All the assumptions could be wrong. I was in this group, and barely made it out of high school, failed out of college a couple of times. But the problem wasn't school, my teachers were mostly nice. I had learned poor homework discipline combined with having a severe fear of failure. Point is when people don't meet potential, there are a dizzying number of reasons, each with their own twists. How do you know which?