Let's be real.

This article suggests (plainly asserts?) that meritocracy is a progressive concept and that somehow "elites" are tired of it. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Even a little research would have shown the author that the affluent would like nothing more than to be judged via a meritocracy.

I am rich (and white), though not a 1%-er. I am also professionally involved in helping families get their children into the best colleges possible. Perhaps paradoxically, the affluent who are the most likely to use services like I provide are the least likely to need them. The affluent (like me) are in a position to give our children, family and friends every opportunity to compete in a meritocracy. We don't level the play-field, so much as create towering plateaus that look like the level play-field.

You cannot keep the affluent down via a meritocracy and any suggestion that you can is ludicrous. Set any objective criteria you like to measure our kids against for admission and we will simply and almost immediately adjust to construct a new plateau. Favor the athlete and we will get private coaching and have our kids play on travel/club teams. Favor the musician and our kids will play in the string section (likely violin). Favor the volunteer, the entrepreneur, the multi-culturalist, we will simply construct opportunities for our friends and family to excel. Favoring class rank over SAT will do nothing to hinder the children of the affluent who can afford private tutoring.

Affluent Asian families are (notoriously?) good at this game and would like nothing more than to be evaluated objectively based on merit. Of course, the system can't just do that as elite campuses now clearly reflect their success at this game. Sure, everyone has been caught flat footed by the recent subjective hand waving around the need for "well rounded candidates" but it is a momentary blip. Once some set of objective criteria is reestablished, the affluent will optimize for it.

To be clear though, this blip related to "well rounded" candidates rather than "test takers" is anything but furthering a meritocracy.

While the poor candidate works a part-time job in the hopes of supporting their family and getting into a good college, the affluent candidate is getting private tutoring. I am personally "guilty" of this as well. My school age kids play on travel/club sports teams, they play string instruments, they participate in private theater, they volunteer with animals and get private tutoring. We are members of private clubs where they socialize with the children of other affluent who encourage their children in similar ways. My kids also play minecraft and roblox and I would never force them to do something they hated but I do give them every opportunity to excel at the things they like, particularly when it helps them to reach the next plateau. By almost any objective meritorious criteria my kids will be prepared to compete.

Without explicit class based affirmative action (completely not meritorious) there is simply no reasonable way to expect a representative poor candidate to compete on merit against the representative affluent candidate. Go ahead and call for a meritocracy, but just be sure you understand who that benefits. Rich Whites and Asians will cry all the way to their elite college dorms if you succeed in championing this cause.

I would like to end this (rant?) by stating that while I give my kids every opportunity to compete "on merit" and do so with no sense of shame, I do feel that this is objectively unfair to less affluent candidates and I am in full support of affirmative action particularly when based on class.