the brightest vs the less abled

I don't usually get worked up over newspaper reports and neither do I feel incensed to the point of blogging about it and possibly get into trouble.

But with all due respect, I am not going to list exactly which report I am referring to. But my basic points are, I am not disagreeing on the part about differentiating pay packages for the academically inclined (as with the case in public sectors). However, pay increments subsequently should still be based on performance as grades can be the starting point but should not determine anything thereafter. What I am ruffled with is the statement '..where the brightest ______ work in other sectors and are, in turn, ______ by their less able counterparts." I was like HELLO, not getting first class honours doesn't deem the person any less able. Okay there is a word 'may' before this statement but it still doesn't make things sound better if you know what I mean.

Talent drain in this particular industry may not only be attributed to the starting pay question. There are things to look into besides that (which I am not going to go into)....anyway there are quite a handful of first class hons peeps slogging away in this particular profession (despite the one pay fits all thingy) and they are doing fine (well some are). And my friend just made a very good point and reversed the above statement, " the brightest ______ may not always be the brightest and at times, their mess has to be sorted out by their less able counterparts." Which I totally agree.