Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Curricula don't have to be easier if you have a large student body, and graduation requirements don't have to be lower. Only if everyone became a lot more skilled than their grades imply. Academic achievement is not be a perfect measure, but if you go from the top 3.4% of the population to the top 50%, the only possible situations are: 1) everyone is doing a lot better at school now 2) graduation rate goes down 3)…
That presumes That the top 3.4% really were just the smartest - not the also the wealthiest and best connected. There is probably both some dilution of talent and also more competition from all levels of society. And as to point 1. In the UK at least there is no doubt many many more are doing a lot better at school nowadays. Schools have evened up and pupils work far harder as most jobs require qualifications.
Are you really willing to believe that ability is randomly distributed among the population ? Because, frankly, that disagrees with a great many studies on the subject.
But of course, what you can do, is lower the level of pupils until the difference between them disappears. You cannot lift everyone's level, that just doesn't work.
Which do you think the government did ? Did it make everyone smarter ? Or did it lower the level until everyone performed ? What do you really think happened ?