In the United States, students from affluent backgrounds are vastly overrepresented at highly selective colleges. Only a tiny fraction come from low-income families. Among the students enrolled at the hundred or so most competitive colleges and universities, more than 70 percent come from the top quartile of the income distribution, while only about 3 percent come from the bottom quartile.
Michael J. Sandel - The Tyranny of Merit
The author points out that students from upper-class backgrounds are admitted to elite universities at a much higher rate than those from lower-class families. While this observation may give us pause to reconsider our notions of meritocracy, it does not, in itself, mean that society is unfair.
Having wealthy parents does not only mean a child receives substantial financial support. Parents’ exemplary character and teaching methods are also highly influential. A higher income level typically indicates that the parents possess strong abilities and favorable genetic traits, increasing the likelihood that their children will naturally inherit these strengths, even apart from any advantages gained through upbringing. Society tends to regard these innate talents as an individual’s genuine abilities.
Even if universities could conduct their admissions processes with absolute transparency and integrity, based solely on a student’s personal abilities, it is still likely that children of upper-class parents would gain entry to elite institutions at higher rates than those from lower-income households.
Therefore, no one can truly know what the natural difference in elite university admission rates would be even if we considered only intrinsic ability. It’s entirely possible that the proportions we see in our current society already reflect that natural distribution. Thus, while the overwhelming representation of upper-class children at prestigious universities may sound like a sign of deep unfairness, on its own it remains an ambiguous standard.