Academia usually garants a minimum of performance - i will give you that, it is no indicator for a maximum.
Well I guess if he performed zero surgeries then he automatically gets 100% success rate.
Knowledge on adjunct fields and skills can accumulate in a person over time, thus allowing them to perform similar feets.
Like, a bright pupil might learn from a master, if it is not intended. It has happend- since medieval times- apprenticeships, although a attack on caste-think can happen today. Yes, they did not jump through the money hoops, that are suppossed to keep them away- but some of them studied what happens around them. Those servant peoples.. they might not be automatons.
If it had a drop-out quota similar to comp sci or math, i might actually consider your elitism a valid opinion. Post all the meritocracy nonsense you need to post, but deep down you know, if you had the money and a mediocre kid- you would help him through and put additional money hoops up behind him to jump through.
The irony, that all the others doing the same thing, have you lay on a metal table, beeing cut open by maybee not the best person for the job, it never reaches escape velocity.
I like to think about Neurosurgery to illustrate: if you need a tumor removed from your brain, would you rather have the surgeon be a privileged, elite surgeon from Harvard, or some random dude from the streets?
We should be happy that we are able to produce elite Neurosurgeons, and strive to give more people the opportunity (including random dudes from the street). Attacking elite Neurosurgeons is completely counterproductive.