> Merit seems to be totally non existent.

I think that's a bit of an exaggerated extrapolation of your observation based on already treated data. Family backgrounds surely plays a definitive role but not in a way that affects merit, especially for engineering schools. The exams are tough and only the best succeed (ie merit). It's how one gets to be the best that's the problem, as mentioned above, the right family background will give you the right environment to succeed. However even if given that, you still suck at maths, no one will help you.

Family legacy is not an admission criteria, unlike some other countries. For those top schools, selection committees look at your grades at the exam and that's it. No need for weird ever lasting list of extracurriculars, or to know who your father is, or how much money they can donate.

And then there is my husband who did l’X coming from Villepinte 93. 25 years ago. From a blue collard family. Merit exists but it is harder for poor people to enter prépas and grandes Écoles due to budget/economics

You're grossly misrepresenting the article, it seems you barely paid any attention to it.

The article says:

>the probability to enter the ENA is multiplied by 330 for someone whose father was in any "grande école"

But you say:

>if you want to enter the ENA your chances are multiplied by 83 if your father was in ENA

Those are very different statements. Firstly, because the article is about the father having done ANY grande école, whereas you're talking about the same grande école. Secondly because the article talks about the probability to enter the institution, whereas you claim to report the probability to enter it IF YOU WANT TO (=if you go through the exam), which are again vastly different quantities.

Your interpretation in terms of "non-existent merit" is also completely silly. Merit is not innate at birth and equally distributed among people by nature. Genetics, education, and favorable conditions growing up all play a large part in whether someone can be meritorious. People whose parents are part of the "elite" (as measured per educational achievement) likely have, on average, a substantial genetic advantage compared to the average person. Furthermore they also have on average a large educational advantage, i.e. their parents educate them better or in better conditions, which makes them more competent, and therefore best suited for the careers that await them after these schools. Finally, these kids likely have an "advantage" in terms of ambition and pressure - people coming coming from high-achieving parents will want to match their parents' achievements (sometimes at the expense of their happiness).

That's not to say that all is pure meritocracy. However, nepotism - i.e. unfair advantages over more competent competition obtained thanks to "special favors" from powerful friends - is only a part of the equation and your methodology has no way whatsoever of detecting what part of this is caused by nepotism, lack public guidance for gifted kids coming from a working class background, or any of the factors mentioned above. The data (which you misrepresent here) doesn't contradict your conclusion but it certainly doesn't support it either.

Should this not be posted in truth is ugly and depressing

Merit is a mere fiction used to sparkle guilt in the poor and confidence in the dominant classes of society.
As a kid with good grades, I didn't choose to have a stable, loving, caring family with a strong cultural capital, to be interested in reading, counting, learning, solving problems. I didn't choose to be a white kid in a privileged school.
A kid who has bad grades didn't choose that. Didn't choose their social and economical conditions, that their body resists staying silent on a chair 8h/day, to be plagued by dyslexia, to have hobbies that have nothing in common with what school teaches...
Now, as a teacher who reads a few studies, I've never been so sure that there is no such thing as "merit".