Stop Killing Geniuses who Don't Fit into the System

The academic system may be good, somehow, to keep and propagate the established body of knowledge in a given scientific field, by correctly reproducing a generation of professionals in a well-established scientific discipline, out of a specific kind of "standard students" who would not have the natural ability to get the correct understanding of that discipline by their own natural inspiration and intelligence outside the system, but have the precise ability and need, without otherwise endangering their emotional balance, that this body of knowledge be coerced unto them, bypassing their own natural research. But the kind of scientists whose success to become professionals in an established field, took place through the system with its official recognition, are not so likely to be the right ones to also successfully build a new scientific discipline from scratch, such as the Science of Steering Humanity's Future.

So there is a variable but significant proportion of needed intelligence that the academic system is producing, however I would say it is a relatively fake or artificial kind of intelligence. Because it is a system adapted to provide standard "education" to the large masses of students, most of whom have a relatively low intelligence ; thus it cannot also be adequate to stimulate the minority of those naturally able to become the best thinkers (who are not themselves a uniform mass either).
The system is there to give an artificial success to some of the stupid, if they fit. It may indeed really give them some sort of intelligence, but a kind of intelligence that only fits a fraction of well-formatted students, far from any "universally best way of doing" (that would be an absurd combination of expectations). It is not even there to give an artificial success to the whole of people, since of course it would not make any sense to distribute that label of success equally. Who fits ? Well, a specific MBTI type does. More details here.
In some ways it behaves as a system made by the stupid, for the stupid, at the service of the illusion by which some of the stupid can pretend to be intelligent, if only they fit.
Some of the truly, naturally intelligent students may happen to fit, but not all. Others can be destroyed, such as Evariste Galois.
Others may still succeed to be recognized but only afterwards, after having turned around it to escape the bulk of that disaster, such as Albert Einstein, as they would not have fit if they had the misfortune of being coerced to follow.
The naturally intelligent may be better off learning completely outside the system, if science interests them.

Generally, a number of essays give a primary importance on developing human intelligence, so expecting future generations to become able to discover how to steer the future, taking it for granted that such discoveries we hope from desired future intelligences (whose development we should plan) were not made yet, no matter than when the needed intelligence and discoveries are here, none of these futurists nor anyone else on Earth would care to know anything about it. And they dream about quite complicated and speculative ways of doing so.
Either through education reforms, as mentioned above, or:
To Steer Well We Need to See Clearly : the Need for a Worldwide Futurocentric Education Initiative
"At the planetary scale, any significant steering initiative, to have enough legitimacy and a chance of success, will need to be understood and supported by a sizeable fraction of the world population"
Or by other means.
For example:
Does Our Civilization Have a Destiny by Mark P Aldridge
"At the personal level, day to day living consumes the vast majority of one's present actions, with little to no concern given for a future longer than 5 year.
My top priority for our species would be a comprehensive program of neurocognitive and artificial intelligence research with the end goal of being able to engineer, or at the very least, mitigate our cognitive flaws or bypass them entirely by creating an intellect unable to be hindered by them,
We could biologically engineer at the genetic level for a purely biological solution.
It would also generate these optimal paths without being counterproductive or illogical; it would not allow for human self delusion, assuming the synthetic intelligence is given accurate and unbiased data.
the end result will hopefully be the same: better, less biased decisions from brains unable to self delude or deceive."
What a curious approach to intelligence : conceiving it as a form of disability. As an example, consider the case of religions, which are powerfully misleading ideologies. A solution to make people "unable" to be deceived, would make them in particular "unable" to be deceived by deceiving ideologies such as religions. But who can say which ideology is misleading and which is not ? Of course "in principle" nobody wants to be deceived, but in practice, if people are deceived about which views are deceptive and which are not, how can you sell them a solution to no more be deceived as it could indeed free them from religious deception, if they are religious and thus believe that their religion is the truth ? Showing them how it can help people out of religious deception won't look attractive to them.
Intelligence is good and a useful extension of your natural intelligence as long as it is the intelligence of your computer or the like, that is at your service for any purpose you want to follow. It can achieve some goals you set to it if some other intelligent people have put there some good software, but it has its range of possible uses and cannot fully replace a naturally developed conscious intelligence. Developing the natural, conscious kind of intelligence is another issue. But why would you personally want to become more intelligent as a conscious being ? I don't know many people who have that wish : most are satisfied with their low intelligence. Because it is who they are.
But even beyond this natural trend, there is another problem: why would anyone wish to be "naturally intelligent" in a world that is so positively hostile to naturally intelligent people ? As I explained here: for example,

To the hell of teasing and persecutions by nasty mates in school, you may fall for:

To the hell of hard lengthy stupid school work, you may fall for:

To the eternal hell of loneliness, you may fall for

Because a problem being intelligent in a world of stupid people, is that it leads, first to social isolation (by lack of anyone around with common interest for meaningful conversations) and second, to be rejected and misinterpreted as stupid by others because you don't think like them. See also Why Nerds are Unpopular by Paul Graham.
And beyond this practical trouble in their life, intelligent people who don't fit into the system also have troubles having their work recognized, not only as victims of widespread prejudices that confuse competence with fitting into the system, but also by the fact (which partially "justifies" the former prejudice) that the space of isolated researchers where they end up is dominated by cranks who won't be friendly either, but set up in that "alternative" space their own "laws" that may range from blindness to intolerance towards any defense of genuine intelligence and knowledge.
It is so unnatural for most people to have the positive attitude and compassion needed and deserved by the minority of those who suffer awful discomfort and social isolation in this stupid world because of their intelligence: comic: People are

If the intelligence of the human specie could rise in the last few million years as compared to other apes, it was thanks to a lucky combination of genetic mutations (diversity) and natural selection where the most clever happened to have better chances to survive and reproduce. This progress was relatively slow (took millions of years) because the natural selection does not operate very wisely and efficiently. However it is undeniable that a sharp genetic diversity of intelligences between humans is there. And just like agriculture succeeded relatively quickly in a few thousands of years to greatly develop some desired qualities in animals and plants by selective breeding, the development of specific qualities or defects in humans across centuries is highly dependent on how things go, how chances to live and reproduce are distributed between different kinds of people.

Stupidly, any such consideration happens to be usually taboo, because there is no stupidly obvious way to avoid any feeling of confusion of such ideas with the way they happened to be awfully distorted and exploited by the propaganda of Nazi Germany to its stupid followers (yes, one more stupid program of intelligence). Here together with the still pervasive Marxist ideology, there is a general taboo towards any ideas of Eugenics, a pressure of political correctness to exaggerate the role of education (and even more, formal public education compared to the rest of possible education methods) compared to innate factors (Heritability of IQ and its even more taboo racial aspect - see here for disclaimer). Only one essay in the contest mentions Eugenics, and remains extremely cautious, not going beyond average usual opinions.
But what people usually fail to see, is that the principle of Eugenics is not even anything artificial, as it is the very process of natural selection to which we owe our very existence and relative intelligence as human beings in the first place. And there is no such a conceivable thing as a possible rest place on the course of this evolution - except of course the option to put one's head into the sand to pretend that nothing is happening meanwhile. Not going forwards on this course, fatally means going backwards because genetic defects spontaneously appear all the time and would accumulate without limit if not eliminated by natural selection processes.
Thus, refusing the occurrence of a positive selective pressure, practically means accepting a negative one instead. But what is best, seriously : pushing forwards, or pushing backwards ?
And the real fact is that this world is now pushing human evolution backwards very strongly. Both by all its welfare and charity which ensures survival and rapid multiplication of most of the stupid and defective people, and by its way of actively destroying the lives of the intelligent:
So, how to think about the problem ? Look here...
Despite the fact that intelligent people are usually not greedy, I do not see it acceptable to forcefully (and thus probably stupidly) redistribute much income from the works of intelligent people for the stupid to prosper and dominate the future genetic evolution of mankind, for many reasons, including that,
See also : The Future Driving Force of Human Evolution
Up : On humanity's failures to steer itself properly

External link : 5 Disadvantages of Being Highly Intelligent