Issues raised, to be adressed:
-"What if you want to do something that you aren't qualified for?" I honestly don't see that as much of a problem- I think it can be agreed that with a certain and undeniable amount of exceptions, a vast majority would prefer/do work in fields they are "good at." And even if you had a dental-drill voice like mine and wanted to be a singer, there's nothing stopping you- hiring is still based off talent. If you aren't "qualified" but want to try your hand in society, give it a try- but if you are trod in the dirt, then it really is no one's fault but your own.
-"What if you're terrible taking tests?" That's an intersting question, especially considering minds like Einstein are noted as having been terrible test takers- however, again, I don't see that great of a problem, because of the nature of Plato's tests. He doesn't (to my knowledge) specify how to test, and it is likely not penci-and-paper (at least not entirely.) His, or my, tests would not be so much about what you "know" (that can be acquired) but what can you "do" and how are you "like." To borrow a just-used example, suppose I am five years old. I can write good poetry (for a five-year old), am outgoing and generally considered to be precocious (although I myself as a child likely was more a pompous prick than precocious) and wish to be involved in musical theatre, say. But, as stated before, my voice could knock down a three-story building. I cannot sing lyrics- but I can write poetry... perhaps I can write lyrics/musicals. And so, that would be the system- natural talent, attitude, and preference. Again, I suggested this system start in what is now the middle-school years, around 12. That will allow the Elementary school basics to sink in, and what's more, by that point in most every child definite highs and lows in ability will begin to show. A child can try for any class, any path- but, to use myself again, I cannot add fractions, so suppose I wanted to take harder math classes. I would be advised against it, as my test results and abilities to this point have certainly shown math to be my weakness, whilst I have vast potential in English (REGARDLESS of typos, haha.) Still, if I'm keenon it I may try to enter the class, but should I fail, I will- as should be- be denied. I would be taking time and resources from (and this will sound harsh) more talented and desrving students (in tha particular field, anyway.) In this way, the paths may be better developed and taught- no longer will huge class sizes and limited materials be an issue, as those students who (again, harsh) are undeserving and unsuited to the materials will not be using them up. And my system does allow for re-tests, in case of a bad day or changed tastes, so yes... but again, the "ability" test. Einstein truly could not pass a test- but he could certainly work on his projects individually... so, survey his projects, his natural portfolio of work, and that's his "test." Testing is not ruled by absolutes, by rights and wrongs and A, B, C, or D- it is subjective in my system, and so even if old Albert had an off project but the teacher/counselor could see that inner genius, his potential, then he'd get his classes. And even if not, he could try his hand in society- and we all know how well Einstein, when setting out his ideas in the real world, fared... I think he would do fine in this system.
-"This couldn't be done under a Democracy" I agree. Teaching, however, and this is the crux of it, is not, and should not be about democracy- that is what Plato railed against, what Nietzsche abhored, and what I am currently infuriated by. Teaching is about passing on knowledge, helping mankind to grow- and if mommies and daddies and little Jimmy or Suzie here or there must have feelings hurt because they want to be chemists yet continually set the lab into a mess as they do not understand acids and bases, then so be it, sorry. We CANNOT stifle growth just because not everyone is capable of it, or capable of growing how they wish (and I'm adressing the GOP and the Democrats here- both are at fault in this instance.)
-"I fail to see how we can implement Plato's Republic without totalitarian control" Yes- except we are NOT implementing his Republic. His Republic has, in bits and pieces, already been tried, knowlingly or not, in Sparta, Rome, Germany, and the USSR- all had noble plans, none worked out all too well. But PIECES of it, BITS of his Republic have done well, and are even necessary- and I believe, with alterations (again this is a modified version of his education system- I'm not assigning classes or instituting state-run nurseries) that this is a necessary part to the furtherment of humanity, and it can be established without a dictatorship. What holds us back is what we have gained from our culture's learned ideas via our education system- we have been taught to avoid failure, to memorize and regurgitate and not fail. We are NOT taught to strive to better our strengths and to succeed. Nietzsche in "Human, All Too Human" referred to those great in one or two areas and mediocre or subpar in others as "organs," and did not approve of them on the whole; he agreed with sharpening one's strengths, but cannot stand the idea of invalids in other areas. By the same token, he teaches that we must strive to develop the Ubermensch, which is good at EVERYTHING- but this, as he realizes, cannot be done whole-cloth. That's why he praises people like Caesar, Shakespeare, Goethe- Ubermensch-like in at least one area, and thus progress, a step towards the Ubermensch. As a society, how might this work is not entirely known- if everyone is Caesar, then where is his army? THAT's why I advocate "organs" far more than Nietzsche ever did- for a society. For a person in generaly it is best to, as Nietzsche says, strive to be great at everything. But for a society, well-trained and generally happy "organs" making up "systems" will make for, I believe, a utopian body of a nation for mankind.
-"The problem isn't government, it's society" Our government has impacted our society so much that is has blurred the line- where once Jefferson, and Locke before him, meant that all men are created equal and for that they should be afforded equal chances to succeed, we have now come to think that to mean all men are to be treated as special in every manner, thus killing the meaning of special, and that all men are created equal and therefore must be treated equal in every respect, regardless of the fact we are individuals, not plants.
-"If you want to learn, you'll learn" I don't disagree- but could you not learn better if you had the classmates you wanted, the the materials you needed, the attention you and your abilities deserved?