Think about the current state of education. Parents with resources over-optimize their kids' education because they understand the inefficiencies in the system and/or understand what it takes to become successful in our society.
This is a perfectly fine response to meritocratic pressure. With tuning to ensure the response is productive learning, versus e.g. rote memorisation, the outcome should be a more-productive citizenry.
In any event, the case is about race-based affirmative action. Nobody is going after means-based anything.
> should be a more-productive citizenry
I'm not sure I care that much about that. Especially w.r.t college admissions. If you wanted to be more productive you'd not even send many people to college in the first place and just have them go straight into the labor force.
This is incorrect. The question of education's impact on GDP per capita is thoroughly researched [1][2][3]. When one broadens to measuring living standards, the results get starker.
[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/60b0/ad7223c9ba54c73af7d332...
[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09654313.2018.14...
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ma-Wadud/publication/48...
Your DNA is not an "external factor". Rather, it's the most internal factor there is.
The important thing to consider is the benefits afforded by meritocracy. When we have adequate filtering mechanisms to help put competent trustworthy people in positions of power, we get less bridges that collapse, less space shuttles that explode, less government officials demanding bribes, and less subtle failures at many levels of the economy. These failures are years downstream of the decisions that set people on their path in life. Most people have not yet mastered their profession; helping this process along is good for everyone.
Those who criticize meritocracy should be honest with themselves as well that these failures can happen.
I feel like a lot of the argument is little more than regret filled excuses and sour grapes.
This is a great populist message but not sure it can be backed up with enough data at any meaningful enough scale to enact policies. Just like if I posited, "Generally, there are a lot of smart, capable and hardworking people who are just surviving check to check." It feels good and there are plenty of anecdotes to back it up, but it's too vague to make policy decisions upon. Raj Chetty's research [0] on social mobility dives into the complexity of it all.
[0] https://rajchetty.com/publications/
Edit:
> But it's only a disadvantage, not a roadblock.
You really nailed the crux of it here in terms of equality of opportunity vs. equity in opportunity. The unhappy compromise to avoid irreparable divisions in U.S. society lies somewhere between removing roadblocks vs. addressing disadvantages.
The equity vs equality is hard to square. Imagine someone who came from real poverty who worked 2 jobs while studying to give his family a better life. He or she makes it, finally, only for them and their kids to be punished for it come admissions time. Is that fair? I don't have great answers, I just feel like everything they try today isn't right, either.
So just like it's not fair for the person working hard and studying to get their family a better life (equality of opportunity), it's also not fair to penalize minors who don't have those types of parents or can't outlast their broken environment to reach a better life (equity in opportunity).
I don't have the answers either but think we should keep trying rather than accept some large number of kids can work hard and still fail due to circumstance beyond their reach. Especially when at the same time, some large number of kids can just be kids and eventually figure it out due to circumstance beyond their reach.