In my educational system, there is one simple rule: you can't attain an education level higher than that of your parents. If they have A levels, you get A levels. If they have a high school diploma, you must stop after high school and take a simple college course or pursue an intermediate-level vocation. If they only have vocational education, you won't be able to go to grammar school or university, no matter how bright you are. No exceptions. Even if you have an IQ of 200.
My question is:
- What would be the effects of this limitation? Would there only be disadvantages or would there be some advantages too?
Also, education is completely free. Those who are entitled to do A-levels and pursue an academic career are sent to boarding schools operated by the state but comparable in standard and quality to Eton or Salem. Regardless of their intelligence - the only thing that matters is the education level of one's parents.
If you are unlucky and you are smart but your parents are dumb factory workers, you are sent to a 9-year secondary school where teachers deliberately try to lower your intelligence and aspirations. If you are caught studying something not on the curriculum or reading classical literature in your free time, you are punished. You are taught to obey and submit to the rule of the elite while you are prepared for a simple, manual job.
I imagine that inequality would be more severe as educational discrimination would now not only be tolerated but prescribed by law. Social mobility would come be minuscule. Intelligence levels would be passed on through the generations, leading to further stratification as workers will be taught to be dumb. An advantage would be that careers will be basically set upon birth and that there would be no over-qualification or shortage of people wishing to do manual, repetitive labor commonly associated with low qualifications. There will be no professors driving taxis or PhD's cleaning toilets.