> The most talented get access to all kinds of free yet prestigious programs and camps, excellent books in local libraries, and professors in colleges.

I agree with this part

> The least talented are carefully looked after, and they don't necessarily have much pressure to get into a college, and rightly so.

This has nothing to do with talent. The poorest in society do receive subsidies (medicaid, food stamps) that the middle class do not qualify for. But that has nothing to do with talent. It's also not "carefully looked after" -- they're just not starving.

I meant programs like No Kids Left Behind, so we are careful to make sure the least talented won't feel singled out in school, or to make sure that their egos get as little bruised as possible. We also tailor the difficulties to them so they at least learn something.

Do you make a distinction between a "bad student" and a "disadvantaged student"? Is it ever fair to describe a student as "less talented" than another, in your view?