A comparitive study.

Now let me draw comparisons to two growth strategies used in different levels. First one is used at a low level with a crowd of 30 in number. It was used in my school. Here the teachers were focusing more on the uplifting of the "poor" students, that's those morons with low grasping power and even poorer memory. The effect of this was, these morons barely managed to pass and the smarter, more intelligent students, who were left to care for themselves, got poorer percentages than their peers in other schools. Obviously, if the school had been careful in their admission procedures they could have filtered out these students and hence need not have bothered about the overall pass percentages. Instead, they could have focused on the brighter students and maybe groom many state toppers.
The second strategy I am commenting on is that of the nation's in dealing with the poor people. If the nation were to put in more efforts in the "boom" zone (like the service sector, infrastructure, real estate loans etc), it can emerge as a topper in the global stage. But if it still works in the upbringing of its poor, then their efforts will go futile according to my theory.