"We should favor ways of organizing our social and economic life so things that are socially productive are more nearly equally rewarded. And we should pick ways of making things, ways of delivering services, ways of running schooling that don’t skew achievement so far at the very top. … We could organize finance so that the middle of the skill distribution, the old home loan officer, is the dominant worker. We could organize medicine in such a way that the difference between the specialist doctor, the nurse practitioner, and the pharmacist is relatively small and most health care is delivered by people in the middle of the skill distribution. ... The core thing to do is to find policies both in education and the labor market that recompress the distribution of economic roles."
In my opinion, we should expand opportunities instead of using meritocracy as a means to exclude.
Why hire one Harvard Law student and make him work 100 hours a week when you can hire two from a state school and have them work 50 hours a week? The workers will be happier and we expand opportunities to those from less privileged backgrounds. I don't believe the gap between a Harvard Law degree and a decent state law school is so great that one can command $250,000 while the other gets like $70,0000. This kind of distribution of income is a big problem.
Plus as we see with our politicians, these top schools produce a lot of dumb ass people.