Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that people cannot adapt to their circumstances. History has demonstrated time and time again that people are a

Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that people cannot adapt to their circumstances. History has demonstrated time and time again that people are able to do so when they are forced to. > There are more 'hands-on' people than 'intellectual' people in this country. And once upon a time, there were more artisans than 'hands-on' people. When the Industrial Revolution occurred and a lot of artisan jobs were replaced by factory jobs, people made arguments similar to yours. But people have somehow managed to adapt, haven't they? > I think Germany is a good model. In high school, students are separated into a vocational track or an academic track. Because of this, Germany has a very highly skilled manufacturing workforce today. But because of their specialized training, the German workforce is relatively inflexible and has failed large portions of the population. There was an article in this week's Economist about this[0]: > Even so, the system has flaws. Some worry, for example, that a stronger general education is needed to equip young Germans to change trades should demand for their specific expertise dry up. > A bigger concern is that early selection fails children from poor and immigrant families, who are likeliest to attend the least academic schools and to miss out on apprenticeships. Partly for this reason, there is a large group of students at the bottom of the rankings—which explains why the German average is still below par. “It is a schooling system that has left a large fraction of students behind,” says Andreas Schleicher of the OECD. 0: http://www.economist.com/node/18061710 http://www.economist.com/node/18061710