As someone who upvotes reasonable policies that promote success of the individual, and of society at large (read: progressive), this is true, but the important part is that the greater the adversity, the less people who will make the cut.

Framed this way, the seemingly optimal outcome (in this example) can be found by: asking kids to solve tough, but interesting problems, while also having already let them know that if they want to take on something that's well outside their wheelhouse, there is a teacher available to help with the tricky parts if the parent isn't able to. Psychological safety, in other words.

Throwing kids or adults into deep water without at least the possibility of help means a lot of people won't even make the attempt, and those who drown become poignant examples of why trying something new is bad. It's a doubly damning result, both for the individual, and society.

Policies need to be considered systematically, in more than just cost/benefit methods, as there are a lot of knock-on effects to any decisions.

For example: in reading what sounded like a good idea earlier, what happens to people who still struggle or can't succeed? Case rested.