1) Say there is an absolute measure or at least good enough to base a meritocracy on. If top schools are diverging from it, are they not then rejecting top stud

1) Say there is an absolute measure or at least good enough to base a meritocracy on. If top schools are diverging from it, are they not then rejecting top students? Shouldn't other colleges then be able to recruit those rejected top students and become top schools? But the opposite is happening -- top schools are becoming more exclusive. 2) If diversity means different values, then doesn't that mean different people will value different attributes? Doesn't that mean everyone deserves to go to a top school, or at least everyone who thinks he or she is great by his or her values? Point 2 suggests that a meritocracy is impossible because there are too many dimensions and measures, all the more so the more you value diversity. I'm not promoting the above. It's just what came to mind reading the article. I'm not sure what it missed because it doesn't sit right, but it suggests whatever top schools are doing is working and that a meritocracy isn't as tenable as you'd think.