> I find it interesting that you put unintelligent before uneducated, you might want to self-examine and see if you hold some prejudices. What are you going on

> I find it interesting that you put unintelligent before uneducated, you might want to self-examine and see if you hold some prejudices. What are you going on about? They didn't understand the material: either they were intelligent enough to understand it, but had been insufficiently educated, or they were unintelligent enough to understand it, and no amount of education would have helped. Regardless, they had no business being there. > I've found that it's almost always lack of education and/or lack of opportunity creating the environment you've described. Sure, but that's irrelevant: they should never have been admitted to the programme. They slowed down the rest of the class; they took places which could have been taken by others; they had a miserable time and hated the experience. Others were worse off; they were worse off. It was a lose-lose situation for everyone. > See the thing is, for every white male/female that this happened to it happens disproportionately more to women, people of color , and women of color increasingly in that order. So? The only fair thing is to do one's best to take everyone on his own merits. Those poor students should have been taken on their own merits, and not admitted; the students who were unfairly rejected should have been taken on their merits, and admitted. Only an idiot would give me a slot on a professional football team in order to make up for my lack of sports privilege; only an idiot would admit an unqualified student to make up for his lack of privilege.