Equality of outcomes is never going to happen, because people are different. But we can only be a meritocratic society when everyone has an equality of opportunity. And that's where we, as a society, are failing. This whole conversation has been about the opportunities gap.

If every child, regardless of SES, had access to adequate nutrition, healthcare, freedom from violence, and a high-quality education, then the gaps we can measure among SES strata would decrease significantly, because so many other studies have shown that environmental factors matter more than genes when it comes to educational attainment.

Of course, we have to first decide we want to be a meritocratic society. I find DAD22's statement here to be most instructive:

Originally Posted by DAD22
As someone who grew up in a broken home, and received no advocacy regarding a public school education that never challenged me mathematically, I see the appeal of meritocratic education. As a parent with a family income over $165,000, I will be doing everything I can to make sure my kids have their educational needs met, in and out of school. I will do my best to set them up for success, and I am not interested in funding an equally enriching childhood for every one of their peers. Contradictory and hypocritical... maybe. I can kind of see things from both sides.

I see nothing contradictory or hypocritical in this view. Meritocracy is good when it benefits the underprivileged individual, but when advantages have been secured, and can be passed down to future generations, meritocracy is a threat. These advantages must be protected from the masses, who might also rise up to challenge the status quo based on their merits. The field of competitors must be thinned. This has been the reaction of the privileged classes throughout history.