I think this is fundamentally about the obsession with meritocracy, and not just the Ivy League. The Ivy League is merely the "best" system that subsequently became the obvious choice for a meritocratic filtering process.

Which means that this issue will arise in any social structure that is attempting to optimize for merit. There have been many books critiquing this idea, but one that is both old and has stuck in my mind is from T. S. Eliot's Notes Towards a Definition of Culture. His basic point is that in a hyper competitive society driven by tests, evaluations, etc., basically no one is incentivized to preserve cultural practices – unless they somehow help one succeed in the new meritocracy. This functionally is a defense of the aristocracy, or of entrenched power that doesn't need to "earn" its wealth by competing. I'm not sure how much I agree with Eliot, but I think this is a pretty compelling point that, a hundred years later, seems quite obviously to have been accurate, if we look at the loss of knowledge traditional art forms.

The problem with my comment here, though, is that is assumes the Ivy Leagues are now, currently meritocratic. It seems pretty obvious to me that they aren't - which makes this an even more complex situation.