There is a very interesting series of essays written by Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal about students going to college. Here in his conclusion, he summarizes his points:

The aim here is not to complete an argument but to begin a discussion; not to present policy prescriptions, but to plead for greater realism in our outlook on education. Accept that some children will be left behind other children because of intellectual limitations, and think about what kind of education will give them the greatest chance for a fulfilling life nonetheless. Stop telling children that they need to go to college to be successful, and take advantage of the other, often better ways in which people can develop their talents. Acknowledge the existence and importance of high intellectual ability, and think about how best to nurture the children who possess it.

I think he's right on.

When you understand that the average I.Q. of people is 100, this means (based on a bell shaped curve) that 50% of all kids have less than a minimal I.Q. needed to even enter college that is truly focused on higher education. Murray postulates that to truly achieve in a fairly graded college, a student would need a minimum I.Q. of 120 which would cut the number of college-eligible students even further. Yet the message given to virtually all kids is that to be a "success" they need to go to college.

One way our education system has coped with this inherent problem is to "dumb down" the curriculum making it possible for virtually everyone who enters the system to graduate. I remember in my intern days when I was doing a lot of I.Q. testing for a psychologists. The program was part of a state rehab program for individuals who were unemployed. One guy I tested had an I.Q. score of 85, yet had graduated with a BA degree at an state university! The disconnect between his real abilities and the abilities that his college accomplishments seem to confer were part of the reason for his being in the rehab program. The effect of this type of lowering the bar is to create a higher educational system designed to cater to a lower common denominator at the expense of the students who really belong there.

I won't go further, Murray makes the points quite well. Go read the essays if you have further curiousity. I will say this. Higher education needs major reform such that those students who really aren't qualified for "college" are able to achieve to the level of their capability successfully. We accept that not everyone is a genius. Maybe it's time that we also accept that not everyone is even average, and that average may mean training of a different type. This offers a much greater chance of success for each individual and for our society as a whole.