Actually this is a question I asked myself a lot growing up. When I rephrased the question as "Is it really a meritocracy if everyone is judged by the same stan

Actually this is a question I asked myself a lot growing up. When I rephrased the question as "Is it really a meritocracy if everyone is judged by the same standard but have different access to resources?" I began to feel that in certain contexts positive discrimination can play an important role. A similar (facetious) situation would be if you were comparing two soccer teams. The first team has to learn soccer by itself and is frequently told that it would be better off learning some other sport. The second team is coached by a good coach who encourages them and gives them specific drills and feedback to help them improve in the skills in which they are deficient. When they have a game (or several), a contest of merit, most of the time the second team will win. But is this really the way to get the best soccer players? It is quite possible that some of the players from the first team would have been better than those in the second if they had had access to the same resources. Obviously the ideal solution is to get everyone a great coach and support them, but what do we do about the ones who already had to go it on their own? If we are hosting a soccer training camp and really want the overall soccer training system to be "fair" and "merit-based" doesn't it make sense to consider how far someone has come in relation to what resources they've been able to obtain? Or do we continue to give the camp coaching resources to those who already had great coaching and deny those resources to those who didn't?