But that only takes into account intellectual testing, not opportunity or interference.
If kid A comes home to a nanny, their own room, a computer with unlimited application opportunities, possibly a tutor, etc ... , they will do better than kid B with the exact same learning capacity, but has to come home to a shared bedroom, poor lighting (or no lighting if the power was just turned off), dreams of buying a computer that doesn't take 8 years to boot, no useful software, a sibling screaming for their turn, etc. ....
Not much different than the physical where my swim team mate goes home to a pool and I do not. I was better because of natural ability, but they would get to work on problem areas on a whim. In other words, an easier ability to do homework.
There seems to be a divide where the disadvantage want to disadvantage the advantaged to *even* the playing field. Then you have the advantaged swearing they just put the effort in, but completely denying their are advantages are just that. Both seem like the wrong answer to me.
The disadvantaged shouldn't request the ceiling to lower, but the floor to rise.
Not criticizing your opinion here, but as a general rule, I approach broad statements that use terms like "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" as just as useless as "Republican" and "Democrat" or "Red State" and "Blue State". There are too many variables to talk about it so easily.
We cannot, I don't think, conflate these so readily. Does it really matter if someone is reading Harry Potter on a latest gen iPad, or from a tattered paperback? I don't think so. Nor can we make false excuses. I don't think, when man has been reading by candlelight from parchment for tens of thousands of years, now say that "Well Johnny doesn't have a computer, no WONDER he's a dumbass!". Yes, I understand that if a curriculum requires internet access, there will be advantages to those that have a computer versus ones that don't. But I think where we set the expectation, where we set the line, matters in these discussions. And the Bernie mindset is "no line on the horizon" (thanks, Bono). The fact is, when we say "all men are created equal" it doesn't mean that "we all have laptops". It means that the rights that are granted under the Constitution are the same for all.
I think the other thing we've lost sight of - which is ironic in this day and age of the credit card, and skyrocketing personal debt - is the value of non-monetary currency. We've gotten to the point where the buzzword is "Get Paid!" but we don't really know what that means. I know for most of the jobs I've ever been involved in hiring, the point of having a college degree isn't specifically that "you took Sociology 201 and therefore know how to implement a subliminal advertising program", or "Why I see you have Statistics 237; you're going to run our Six Sigma Program!" Hey ho! It IS however, a measure of your perseverance. A measure of your ability to respond to the varying and disparate needs of 40 some-odd professors, and figure out a way to meet those needs to a moderate (at least) degree of satisfaction. Just like, incidentally, you do in work when you have stakeholders. It is also a measure of value; you clearly thought highly enough to further yourself in an objective, uniform environment (as opposed to taking advantage of a subjective "learn on the job" from a guy who may or may not be capable in what he does).