Ethically Sourced Elitism and Cults of Personality at the Ivy League. For all of the above to apply, there needs to be some kind of moral imperative that is perceived by a certain demographic as beneficial. Since the vast majority of people within the top of the pecking order of any elite institution are likely to be either 1) middle class, 2) members of an underrepresented minority, or 3) children of the underclass, these same groups would have more to gain from the existence of such a club or group than individuals who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (e.g., business owners, military contractors, wealthy individuals, or people who hold racist or imperialist views). Consequently, many of the best universities that these would-be initiates are applying to are, ironically, bastions of the same kind of elitism that they are trying to escape (i.e., Harvard, Yale, Princeton, et al.). To further the understanding of this phenomenon, the author has conducted interviews with individuals who have attended exclusive universities or private boarding schools and have concluded that: 1) they are not “exclusive”, 2) the term ‘elitism’ has been used as a pejorative within the higher education community, 3) an undergraduate degree is not enough to be considered ‘a part of the club’, and 4) “private schools” often use the term as a euphemism for “select”, “special”, or “superior”. As a result of this “elitism” being perpetuated within both the business world and higher education, many of these applicants to these elite institutions are convinced that there is something inherently better about a particular institution. However, the concept of an elitist institution is problematic for a number of reasons. This is because this “elitism” (or self-made aristocracy) is inherently egalitarian in nature – all of the people who fall within a particular echelon share some trait or interest that allows them to rise within the ladder (e.g., wealth, intelligence, athleticism, charm, connections, personality, race, wealth, and other benefits from birth). Consequently, an individual’s worth is in large part dependent upon the institution they attend (along with the amount of money they have, their parents’ money, and/or being related to someone who has). The elitism that these individuals are looking for are the egalitarian elitism of aristocratic institutions that are exclusive in terms of not having a clear entrance criteria (e.g., Yale) and where those who are in a particular class/institution/network have a specific attribute or quality that was not available to others (e.g., wealthy, white, male, or part of the same network). Consequently, the students who are attracted to such institutions share certain characteristics that are similar and can be correlated. By being in this elite environment for a long period of time, these individuals grow to be even more arrogant and superior as they view themselves as “above” the plebeian masses. The “elites” have become so convinced of the “necessity” for institutions like these that they feel a moral obligation to recruit as many people as possible to the “club” (i.e., Ivy League and exclusive private schools). These recruiters are not only concerned with the fact that their institution is exclusive, but also with the fact that other people are aware that the institution is exclusive and believe that their institution is superior. This notion of exclusivity is part of a larger phenomenon known as what the author calls the “Cult of Personality,” which are schools, groups, and individuals who promote a particular idea in an attempt to create a persona or construct around it. The use of a college admissions essay to develop such a persona is a more extreme version of what is going on in schools, universities, and colleges around the world. Moreover, because those who can pay are able to gain entry into a particular college, this idea has become a very lucrative means for people to sell “stories” of achievement and success to a public who are so inundated with “celebrities” that they have lost faith in their system of government. Finally, the author suggests that those who “aspire” to “elitism” should be looked at as being a “narcissist” and may need to “take a dose of their own medicine” – rather than think they should be given “leeway.” In an article published at Business Insider, Professor David Deming outlines how companies can combat the growing trend of “techbro” culture in the workplace. His approach consists of taking action and taking charge. He suggests that techbro culture is growing due to companies like Google and Facebook encouraging their employees to take risks and develop new products because they think these are traits that are “good for the bottom line.” Deming argues that “risk taking” is only good when it is appropriate. Deming believes that any company “that needs to succeed in today’s workplace environment must encourage employees to embrace humility” and believes that the concept of “humility” is increasingly important in the contemporary world because people no longer need to be subservient. Instead, he argues that companies should consider the possibility that the “best leaders are those who take small risks and allow their employees to find their own ways to do their jobs and excel in their work” rather than believing that they should be punished for being “humble.” Deming believes that this “new form of humility” might be easier to implement in firms with a smaller size and market share (i.e., a larger firm is likely to be too intimidated to take advantage of this “humble approach”). Regardless, Deming believes that the most important thing a leader can do is be “humble,” which he defines as “being self-aware, acknowledging one’s own imperfections, accepting that we all make mistakes, and striving to continually improve ourselves and the organizations we lead.” He argues that while everyone makes mistakes, people have become “too cautious” and “too much focused on their own careers and making money.” Deming believes that there are several reasons why the culture has taken a turn for the worse. He believes that one reason is that individuals were forced to grow up quickly and have to deal with the complexities of adults’ lives (e.g., the decision to have children). In addition, many students who attend college now believe that “life will unfold for them like a movie script and don’t need to work hard or take risks.” Moreover, he suggests that these youth were raised in an “open workplace” where parents encouraged them to use computers and video games from a young age, while their academic experiences lacked supervision. Thus, many students don’t know how to read, write, or think because they were never taught how to do these things at home. Lastly, he claims that the “tech industry is rife with arrogance.” Deming provides a detailed view of how a good leader should act and think. He believes that technology companies that value “humble people” will be more successful and lead to more innovative products than those that don’t. This is because humble individuals can be easily intimidated and don’t allow themselves to be “bullied into doing things a certain way,” which can often lead to “a better product.” He suggests that in the case of Google’s infamous “nap room,” it seems like it was “used as an excuse for getting too little work done. This attitude towards productivity is common across the Valley and the wider tech industry. They say they want everyone to thrive and to avoid being the dullard in the woodwork, but they also have little patience for anyone who gets lazy or incompetent.” Deming argues that Google is a company that believes that “work is always valuable,” and “that technology is a way of life. But work, like life itself, has a dark side: its downside, the risk of failure, and the uncertainty of success.” In his argument, Deming argues that it is these dark side of business that many companies are afraid of. He believes that there are some things that businesses will do so that people can feel “safe.” This explains why Google is more interested in developing its own version of college, but why it is unwilling to work with state college systems to make higher education more accessible. When it comes to students, Deming states that it “doesn’t take much to keep the ‘dullard in the woodwork’ feeling away – a little bit of structure and oversight will do the trick.” He believes that schools should be “more aware of how to structure environments in which people can flourish.” Although schools are structured differently today, it is difficult for a university to get it right “since ‘right’ is a relative term. All of us are drawn to the environments and social structures we’