Worth being said we're talking about access to education here, not serious job. Maybe the world's best surgeons are actually within a traditionally marginalise

Worth being said we're talking about access to education here, not serious job. Maybe the world's best surgeons are actually within a traditionally marginalised group, but their skill and talent isn't developed because they're denied access to quality education because their previous levels of education were of lower quality? The best way of finding that is to have access to proper education to develop that talent. Proper education is currently a myth. Education is unfair. If the best surgeon is out there, but has had every barrier to educational success thrown in front of them (inner city school, poor parents who can't pay for tuition to improve your grades, who can't help you access support for university applications, where there's no expectation or ambition for success, where teachers have no investment in seeing you succeed, where you see another group repeatedly, systematically preferenced because they got the birth lottery to have access to all of the above), is that the right outcome for society? To preference one group just because it's always performed reasonably as a result almost solely of their privileges? To be clear, it's not PC culture. Noones saying an underrepresented group has to be shoehorned in to make up quotas - but seeing the context of candidates, to put weight to performance that's not just proportional, but outweighted to their background (even if it means the overall performance at the previous educational level was lower, the markers of their ability to outperform their "position" mean that given access to the top tier of education, they'd outperform).