I'm happy that the story played out well for you. Did you get that chance to go to the "wealthier" school from a process borne of equity, or one of equality? I'

I'm happy that the story played out well for you. Did you get that chance to go to the "wealthier" school from a process borne of equity, or one of equality? I'd imagine the latter is something like, you tested into and maybe got a scholarship for the school regardless of the means of your family, and the former something like, you were accepted into and maybe got a scholarship for the school regardless of your test score based on some immutable characteristic of your family. One of the core tenets of classical liberal thought is that children should not bear the sins of their fathers, and I think from that stems a lot of support for public schools acting as an equalizer between children of higher-achieving and lower-achieving parents; because whether on the equality side or the equity side, most people agree that being born to a poor family, or one that does not value education, should not determine the entire path of your life, start to finish. But your view seems too pessimistic; from your belief that two people cannot be compared unless they are coming from an equal footing, it stands to reason that you also believe that there are basically no individual differences, only group differences. And that individual effort matters little in light of their background. Should we hire as a salesperson someone who lacks confidence and interpersonal skills, or a mason someone who is physically weak? Sure, nobody chooses to have a stammer or be asthmatic as a child, and those differences do compound over time and you end up with someone who finds it hard to make a sale or lift a concrete block. And I believe in giving people a chance. But at some point, individual efforts should matter.