Listening to Jordan B. Peterson talk about why equality of opportunity was desirable while equality of outcome was not, I was very convinced with his reasoning.
Upon further thought I'm quite divided, I don't believe equality of opportunity as ideal its state might be covers the landscape completely... there are simply infinite number of factors involved, that a simplistic system with equal opportunity to all fails to acknowledge. There is always possibility for undiscovered potential. To take into account the intrinsic potential, and to ensure its complete exploitation, a hybrid system must be established, the overall theme being equality of opportunity but with the promise for a equal balanced outcome.
Furthermore I believe a static system is a flawed machinery. Every system should be open to adaptability and it must evolve continuously until some equilibrium is reached, maximising the output, what that equilibrium might be is hard to ascertain when working with a subject set as unpredictable and diverse as humans. Even after when the system has stabilised how long it might stay so before the need for it to start evolving arises again, situations change, subjects change and a high caliber system should too to yield acceptable results.
A hybrid dynamic system that evolves and adjusts continuously based on output produced is optimal. All of that said equality of opportunity is much more reasonable than a total equality of outcome.