The problem is that the objective criteria aren't much better. What do we mean? GPA? Test score? Those correlate maybe .4 with first year GPA in school, and ev

The problem is that the objective criteria aren't much better. What do we mean? GPA? Test score? Those correlate maybe .4 with first year GPA in school, and even less with later criteria. So, putting aside variability from one day to the next in when you take the test, inequities in students' preparedness on the day of the exam, etc and so forth, you're left empirically with a fairly weak correlation with one very immediate criterion, that gets even weaker with time. I don't disagree with your concerns at some level, but think the alternative has its problems too. We discuss "merit" as if people can't change, can't improve, and that, more importantly, all the proxies we assess are equal to what we're really looking for. And then we use it as some statement about individual ability as an inherent, perfectly assessed metric. Imagine if we measured people's weights at age 18 with a scale that correlated only .40 with true weight, and then used that as an index of physical fitness that then determined important trajectories in their lives. It sounds absurd because it is. Meritocracy is broken because we've become used to treating proxy metrics as equal to the real attribute of interest, and assuming that attribute can't change and is fixed with time. I think a lot of the problems we have in the US all come back to this, whether it be inequality, resentment, distrust, or dysfunction: there's very much a class divide built on sand, and a sort of daily cognitive dissonance we're asked to just accept. I'm not saying these purely holistic strategies are better or worse; I have no problems with "objective" criteria, if used appropriately, but now they're not used appropriately.