Working class and intelligence are fairly vague terms. Do we mean manual manufacturing workers and IQ for example? We don't really have the concept of social classes in Australia anymore.
I would expect performance in standardised tests (academic abilities) would be lower on average for poor people. I don't feel like searching for papers this late at night.
Education does affect many skills, but general intelligence (Not the technical term but rather my own vagueness, principally rapid problem solving/ability to understand complexity) is ultimately inherited in my opinion. Genes provide the potential, then environment, and an element of chance, the results.
I know several brilliant people who were from a working class (England) background, but who used their intelligence to enter highly skilled careers with better incomes. They would no longer be identified as poor or working class. They married clever and well educated spouses, and have clever children. Such a situation is probably not uncommon. Other traits such as motivation and home culture may affect the outcome, but you might expect a gradual poaching of talent. Sounds evil, but there probably has to be a specific mix of genes and environmental conditions to lead to upward mobility, emphasis on genes.
You can't be dumb as a doornail and function as a skilled professional, because your work is just too complex. Some have argued that you should let anyone study medicine due to GP shortages, but wouldn't really want to spend resources on people who might kill them, if the candidates managed to pass their exams that is.
Even with the best education, it can be fruitless. You might get slow students to improve, but they'll reach a (lower) ceiling. One can learn how to learn, and strategies to think more efficiently, but the hardware will still provide limits. More knowledge will increase your skills, but general intelligence will not be changed significantly. This seems to trouble people. The brighter student can do better with significantly less effort than the less able one who works more. If a gifted student works hard, they'll leave their classmates in the dust. Working doesn't necessarily make them more intelligent, but is more related to their personality, maturity and values. It might be smart
not to get 95% on every test when it will merely waste your youth and have next to no impact upon your particular career options. Discipline, study skills and good habits are still vital though. University can provide skills, expert knowledge and rigour that just isn't available elsewhere, although it is sad that people study things they have little or no interest in, which is a waste.
On rich vs middle class, I believe that intelligence is less important. Many of the most wealthy people I know are no smarter, and usually less so, but are in careers with specific trait and skill sets that bring in the cash. Some of these traits appear to be confidence, perseverance and chiefly, good judgement. Again, they have a certain level of brains, required to understand complex problems. Direct inheritance of wealth is a different matter.
I saw a comedy
video with Paris Hilton yesterday that actually impressed me. I don't really know anything about her but she didn't appear to be as stupid as I expected, and can at least act a little, at least once.
I actually tried to finish university twice, but I quit both times because I felt it didn't have anything really useful to offer me besides some stupid fucking paper which makes me look smarter in some people's eyes. Now I have harder time finding a job because of this, yet I still don't regret it. I preffer increasing my intelligence on my own, by reading whatever I choose to read. Education might be a good concept, but I hate educational system in my country.. I don't know how it's like elsewhere though, might be really useful in other countries.
