> [...extreme scenario highlighting large differences in ability and opportunity...] sure that's unfair, but what does it have to do with meritocracy? The situ

> [...extreme scenario highlighting large differences in ability and opportunity...] sure that's unfair, but what does it have to do with meritocracy? The situation isn't always (or ever) so cut-and-dried. Usually you have to compare those 4 applicants across many different and subjective criteria. Moreover your own assessments are, at best, less than perfect. Sometimes choices between closely matched applicants really do come down to a lottery and this is what some elite schools have to resort to. Sometimes the decision is by referral through a social network, or greased palms. Sometimes other criteria like diversity can be a factor if the candidates are closely enough matched and there is a desire to have more diversity. For something to be truly meritocratic, it would require that everyone have the same values and that everyone would agree on one "objective" assessment. That's never the case. And worse if it is called "meritocratic" it's always about "merit" as measured by ONE entity and not everyone else.