I think it's nonsense to talk about equality of outcome but we could talk about quality of outcome ahead of equality of opportunity. Ie. What is actually being achieved rather than what have we done to notionally make achievements in 30, 40, 50 years time
Equality of opportunity seems like a pretty trite phrase to me to put a gloss on the fact that not much happens to address the needs of very disadvantaged people.
The problem is also that the equality of outcome that some people (particularly government ministers) aim for isn't actually helpful at all.
One of the targets that I could see them setting as having to have 'equality of outcome' rather than 'equality of opportunity' is state school access to elite universities (for example).
This is already being looked at as a major factor with higher education, and it would be pretty easy to legislate for a minimum percentage of yearly intake coming from state schools - and then the government that does this would hail their own achievement at widening access to elite higher education.
The problem with it is that the percentage of students entering higher education from state schools is a worthless statistic. At the moment there are universities who take almost 100% of their intake from state schools - but who have over 50% drop out rate; whereas there are elite universities who only take about half their intake from state schools - but have a virtually zero percent drop out rate.
In terms of improving people's life chances and widening social mobility they could be seen as roughly equal - and the elite universities could even be said to be doing better (as the 50% who graduate from there are likely to be doing better than their equivalent from the more bog standard higher education institutes); but the current measure would say the elite universities are doing terribly and the universities where most people drop out are doing well (for social access).
This is the kind of yardsticks politicians are likely to use if they start trying to fix equality of outcome - not only is it going to unfairly skew whatever they're measuring one way or another, it's not even likely to end up being helpful.
I do think some of your point is fair. There will always be some inequality. Equality of outcomes means there can be no reward for parents spending time with their kids etc. And there is no point in forcing people on to courses when they aren't capable of completing them. I do think that 50% is a pretty sorry figure though. Sure that they could move that without any significant change for the worse. Equality of opportunity is a long way off. Not sure how you go further without massively screwing around witha whole host of things and producing some very bad unintended consequences.
FWIW, I am not sure there are many universities with 50% dropout rates, though I am sure there are plenty of courses at some universities.