If a martian saw modern economics, he would find the hypothesis that IQ explains much of the cross-sectional variation in income to be underevaluated. It's not the only thing to be sure, and there are many exceptions, but IQ is still treated like the wayward son a family doesn't talk about.

As per education of my kids (I have 2), I just see much of the school day addressing ephemeral topics in trendy issues. I don't have the enthusiasm for homeschooling, but I figure if my kids can learn math, statistics, chemistry, biology, literature, history, and writing, and then be involved socially with a group (band, football, chess, whatever), he'll be in fine shape, even if he doesn't get a college degree, let alone an advanced degree. In hedge funds, many successful people started in the pits and have pretty limited schooling. The smart ones are successful in spite of this, because it's so meritocratic. In an information economy life will become more meritocratic going forward.

Lastly, as I went through a good phd program, I personally worked with many students who I know are much smarter than me. There were problem sets, and some kids were just much more clever than me in logic, mathematics, statistics, etc. Some of these smartypants didn't make good academics because they couldn't come up with their own research. But some did, and they are now professors at good schools. The great thing about life is it's not one dimensional, and so if you try hard enough, and you are reasonably intelligent, you will find something you can do better than most people, and you can thrive. I don't sweat the thought that my kids might not be the smartest in their class, but I do want them to intelligently address their journey finding their niche in life. Signalling, and the dominant PC curricula, seem wasteful in that regard.