results are poor predictors of later proficiency in science in particular (I'm not deliberately singling out science, it's just what I was involved in). I think there is research showing this, but I don't have details. This is not necessarily very useful information, as I don't know that good predictors have been established. It's easy to give examples of people who've done very well despite being pretty much written off at school, and lots of bright sparks who've fizzled out, but this is a case where we need good statistics, not a bunch of examples. It may be that our systems for trying to predict future performance are little better than chance, self-fulfilling to some extent (if you give people opportunities based on their background, those with better opportunities will progress more). So assessment by examination and diligent coursework may simply be a way to do things, rather than the best way - you have to have some way of selecting people. As I say, I don't know if this can be applied to any useful purpose, but I would like to see those making decisions trying to find out what is known rather than making "commonsense" judgements. The law of unintended consequences is very unforgiving - too many "obvious" ideas turn out to do more harm than good. I must not make assumptions based on limited knowledge. I must not make sweeping generalisations based on limited information. I must not confuse propagander with empirical evidence I must not trust