The second issue is more complex. The author argues that higher education isn't a meritocracy (that privileged students have a much easier change of getting in and staying in to a prestigious school). That's likely true to some degree, but the author over-simplifies things (there are certainly people attending those universities who are there based solely on merit).
It's clear that the job market for professors values educational background, because that's what students are voting for with their wallets. As long as that continues to be the case, those who have more money, and whose families value education, will continue to have an advantage. I don't know that we ever escape that.
1. Perhaps your university background is different, but I haven't ever had the impression that a particular professor's class is preferred to another due to the first professor's educational pedigree, in undergraduate classes. Such classes often conform to general topics and there is insufficient variability for two professors to directly compete for students.
Undergraduate students bring in the most money but, as I mention above, aren't really involved in selecting one instructor over another; indeed, undergraduates are often taught by graduate students. If the cash-generating undergraduates are cut off from professors, it stands to reason that undergraduates' opinions aren't important in hiring professors.
Graduate courses are, of course, different. First, graduate students often cost money (they often receive a stipend). But getting into graduate school isn't as meritocratic as it may seem, which both relates to the OP's point and to my second disagreement.
2. I don't believe that the OP ever says that graduate schools don't admit students based on merit. Instead, she gives an example of how a strong candidate might prefer a less-prestigious university to a more prestigious one (cost of living).
But realistically, I know of no society where parents don't favor the interests of their own children, resulting in a trend towards increasing disparity.
Perhaps the best we can hope for is to remember that perfect meritocracy is utopian, and can't be reconciled with fairness, so long as individuals can choose to whom they share their advantages -- indeed when we can't even all agree on what those advantages are. So we look for second best, for instance, endorsing social and economic measures that counteract that disparity.
"But realistically, everyone else is doing it..."
Yes. I didn't have any particular society in mind. Just our own nature.
What's more the latest US Census post points quite clearly to a powerful assortat I've mating effect.
We have a controversy about wealth inequality and it seems that would be a natural result of a cycle of power simply being passed down generation by generation.
I think the opposite of that, a meritocracy, is what we want - but maybe what we have is inevitable in a money and status obsessed culture. I don't know if the culture is a cause or result of the systems we have that tilt the scales so far in favor of the elite over the non-elite, but one or the other would have to be addressed in some way.