I wonder what exactly you mean by "meritocracy".

My take:

- Lots of AP success, good grades, good recs, etc. are just table stakes for anyone who is seriously considering going to an elite school. If that's all an applicant is bringing to the table, they will basically be competing with 1000s of clones. This does not bode well for them unless they have something else that stands out.

- Based on pure intellectual prowess, maybe ~30% of each Harvard class (less in other elite schools as prestige level decreases) is able to understand/identify/conceive of, work on, and solve interesting problems. The number of people who meet this standard and do not get into an elite school (typically the school of their choice -- they are aggressively courted) is very small, and it is usually due to some glaring error and/or omission in their application.

- The rest of the class is filled up with solid-but-unexceptional intellectual clones (good grades, etc.) who are bringing something else to the table. This could be (using your order and adding some) child of wealthy alums, child of donors, talented athlete, possessor of social capital, racial diversity, geographic diversity, etc.

First, note that "fairness" in terms of merit stops at 30% or less of the class. If one were to limit "fair" to actually being intellectually qualified, then the admissions would stop there. Is that fair? I don't know, but I am certain that almost no one wants that on either side of the fence.

So the next question that the admissions group has to answer is "Well, how do we fill the rest of the spots. Hmmmm... we have a BUNCH of applicants that kind of look alike. How shall we prioritize them?"

This is how we get groups that get an advantage. As said above, this could be a child of wealthy alums, a child of donors, a talented athlete, or a possessor of social capital. It could also be something like race (both for literal diversity of color, but also for diversity of life experiences) or geographic location.

Are any of these "fair"? Some may be more fair than others (athletes, even at athletically-weak Ivies, develop social capital that stays with them after graduation that most non-athletes don't really appreciate), but at least they are a functioning heuristic that can arguably add something at a higher rate than "random".

I would personally say that selecting for one or more of these groups may not be "fair" as in "choose from like group randomly", but I think it is probably much better for the ecology surrounding the school(s). Each of these groups leads to something positive for the school, while selecting at random means that the school will also benefit randomly (and probably less in the long run).

These schools are at the top, and they want to stay there. Making admissions decisions that are likely to increase their financial and social capital is a good way to do that.

> No more pretending to be fair and all that bullshit

The best I can tell, elite schools are as fair as they can be for the truly strong/qualified applicants -- they all get admitted. After those are admitted, while staring into the face of a lot of academically similar applicants, the elite schools start making decisions that benefit and perpetuate their existence. To be fair, I am surprised that the paths that lead to these decisions generate as much interest as they do. It seems fairly natural to me.