just the way they refer to it is disturbing, bad enough favoring legacies but "lineage" makes it sound like they really think these people are somehow superior based on their bloodline. The new nobility, how dare these serfs with good test scores defile our institutions!
It's worth noting that the term "meritocracy" was actually coined by somebody criticizing the serfs defiling sacred institutions.
In practice this doesn't happen - some children have massive advantages compared to others. To then take all of these children and one day try to use an objective measure to decide who gets access to yet more advantages is obviously going to massively favor the non-meritocratic-to-that-point advantaged children.
So yes, a true meritocracy may be completely fine, but in the real world "meritocracy" is. anything but.
Without a common language communication becomes impossible.
The normal definition of the word is that those who are best at a task should perform it. The most competent applicant should be hired for a job. If a billionaire's kid happen to be best, because of all the private tutoring they got, that's not really relevant for a meritocratic decision.
I mean, if some job requires being good at math, I agree math ability should be considered. It's just that I don't think it should be high status or prestigious.
Basically meritocracy can turn into classism, and due to accumulated advantage it can entrench. Everyone has a chance in theory, but in practice advantage compounds.
There's also the simple human welfare problem that vicious never-ending competition every minute of your life is exhausting & demoralizing.
Harvard has always been a social indicator that is also decent educationally in some areas (but not, AFAIK, superlative in any undergraduate field.)