4 ms·
No, the article doesn't use the word intelligence; it uses the words brains, brainpower, intellectual capital, talented, and clever instead. That's The Economis
by pash 12y ago
No, the article doesn't use the word intelligence; it uses the words brains, brainpower, intellectual capital, talented, and clever instead. That's The Economist for you.
The article more than once calls for improving the prospects of poor, clever children.† If you missed the emphasis on intelligence, I suggest you give the article another read.
† — In Britain, where the article was published, clever is very nearly synonymous with intelligent (and more often used), by the way. Americans tend to use clever to mean something more like witty, inteventive, or even cunning.
- ceejayoz 12y agoExcept the article is talking about how clever-but-poor kids don't succeed in the same way. A clever kid from a poor family with only shitty education available is going to be far more likely to remain poor. > The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared. > The solution is not to discourage rich people from investing in their children, but to do a lot more to help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents. > Improving early child care in the poorest American neighbourhoods yields returns of ten to one or more; few other government investments pay off so handsomely.