In the US there has been pushback lately on the policy of "legacy admissions" - that is the idea that children of graduates of prestigious schools (think Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.) should be given preference in admission. This is just one such example of ways in which America's supposed meritocracy is not open to all and how the well-off can continue to get richer and better educated. It's not a simple problem to solve. As this article indicates, meritocratic principles breakdown when parents want to invest in children's educations or when highly educated people marry each other. Arranging marriages and preventing parents from caring about their children's education is probably not the best policy but there must be some better ways. Both those on the left and the right of American politics theoretically believe that it should be a meritocratic place - perhaps this is something all Americans from both side of the political aisle could get behind!
Once progressives saw academic testing as a way of breaking down old structures of privilege; there is now a growing sense that it simply serves to advantage those who have been schooled to excel in such situations. Heirs to Andrew Jackson on the right have their own worries about the self perpetuation of an American elite, but no desire at all to use government as a leveller. Both sides can agree that the blending of merit and inheritance is un-American. Neither has plausible ideas for what to do about it.