What's Wrong With Doing Well In School?

I did well in high school (I was my class valedictorian).  I did well in college (I graduated in the top 3% of my class).  I earned A's in all my master's degree courses.  I'm proud of how I've done academically.  Why shouldn't I be?

For high-achieving high school students, nothing is more validating than a report card full of straight A’s. These hallowed grades promise salaried rewards aplenty in the working world. Even more importantly, contemporary culture tends to treat educational success as a sign of moral worth: Parents and grandparents and teachers are proud of kids who do well in school. They shouldn’t be. 

Here we go.

But amidst all the worrying over how genetics could influence the way we think about a person’s success in school lies a fundamental, unquestioned assumption: That such an intelligence-based meritocracy should exist in the first place. We are so invested in the idea that academic achievement is a de facto good that we fail to consider whether intelligence should be rewarded in the first place.  

Grades and intelligence are not signs of moral superiority and shouldn't be treated as such, but neither should they be derided.  All other things being equal, I'd rather associate with smarter people than dumber people, and why not?  I'd rather associate with more attractive people than less attractive, more athletic people than less athletic, and with nicer people than boorish.

If we didn’t associate intelligence with personal worth, there would be as little controversy as the genetics of education as there is over the genetics of height. And yet we use educational success as an indicator of personal value—despite the fact that many of the factors that determine our experiences in school are beyond our control.

I disagree with that point.  I don't think we associate intelligence with personal worth at all, but I'd guess that most people would rather have more intelligence than less.  Why not prefer more of any specific commodity, trait, or attribute?  Should athletes not be proud of their accomplishments?  Who else does the author believe should minimize their accomplishments?

Of course pursuing knowledge is a valuable endeavor. But you can gain knowledge whether you’re studying for a final or working in kitchens, farms, concert halls, and railways. The notion that rewards should go to the most intelligent isn’t a sign of a fair society, but a truly unjust one.  

The author repeats the unsupported claim that "rewards should go to the most intelligent".  I get the idea that she definitely has an axe to grind.  Is she not smart?  Or perhaps does she think she's smart but has missed out on all those "rewards" she feels she's due?