Most of the arguments over our meritocracy come down to a matter of semantics. People seem to have wildly different definitions of a meritocracy. If you define

Most of the arguments over our meritocracy come down to a matter of semantics. People seem to have wildly different definitions of a meritocracy. If you define (as I do) a meritocracy as a society in which power is given according to ability, then a society in which there are educational disadvantages for the poor is nonetheless still a meritocracy, albeit an educationally-unequal meritocracy. A society can be both a meritocracy and have poor social mobility. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive (though in some cases they can be). Yes, it is true that today's society is by no means a pure meritocracy. Connections matter. That is unlikely to ever change. The problem of "who you know matters" is a problem of information - people would rather hire a slightly-below-competent friend than a supposedly-competent stranger because their friend is a known quantity.