"One might even imagine a day when we could genotype all the children in an elementary school to ensure that those who could most benefit from help got the best teachers. Not only because they would improve the most, but also because they would suffer the most from lower quality instruction. The less susceptible — and more resilient — children are more likely to do O.K. no matter what. After six or seven years, this approach could substantially enhance student achievement and well-being."
Of course, this is a bit of a slippery slope. While Belsky is not a proponent of abandoning the resilient children altogether, it is hard not to see this as the most likely outcome. There is a sense of "well, the dandelion children will do fine no matter what, so what difference does it make?" Belsky suggests that other forms of intervention can be found for these types of children, but in a society that seemingly values cost-effectiveness and efficiency above all else, the quickest, cheapest fix is to genotype all children, put the orchids with the best teachers and the most funding/programs, and put the dandelions with the sub-par teachers and less funding/programs. Then, ultimately, everyone will come out in the middle. I don't want to harp on Belsky too much because I do think he makes some good points, and he tries to argue that it shouldn't be just about saving money, but there is still something unsavory to the idea of using a person's resilience against them. Especially, when we have no idea what the limits to that resilience may be.