Again, admitting really rich, prominent kids is something that just has to be done to keep the school afloat.
If all you have is a bunch of eggheads, then you're an egghead school. For better or worse, eggheads don't run the world. Elite colleges can't ignore kids who might go on to run the free world someday.
I'm not arguing it's anymore fair and meritorious, just that the rules are different. What they're trying to optimize is different. Basically, they're trying to evaluate if the applicant will be able to crank out a lot of research papers - this is what benefits themselves (if they take the student on) and the department.
Money does come into play, but indirectly. It's those research papers that let professors get grant money.
The undergrads at Princeton were largely all generalists. The PhD students were all specialists.
They could try to fight the current world order, though, instead of admitting some Skull and Bones cocksuckers who go on to destroy the country and world economy. They could show a lot more spine on that one.
The skull and bones kid is probably going to do alright in the world, even if he is a jerk (I'm playing along with your sterotypes here). The kids with high "g" are, like startups, a bit of a crapshoot. You might get David Foster Wallace, but probably not. Either way, the "g" kids aren't going to bring home the bacon.
This is how things work now, but you are at least in a position to change this, admittedly in a very small way. Why aren't you trying to bring about a world where the "g kids", so to speak, are able to bring home the bacon, instead of the children of the caste that brought us Bush and subprime?