I'm trying to figure out why Stanford is the common denominator here, versus other elite colleges. Maybe there's a phenomenon similar to "nouveaux riche" that's "nouveaux puissant" (newly powerful) or "nouveaux altruist" -- these kids (and their parents) see no limits and no downsides to exercising their power and purported "do-good-ism" as they see fit. Maybe the eastern, old-money elites lack the need to show off and or exploit their power in the way that newly minted elites do. Or maybe the combination of being on an Elysian Fields-like campus surrounded by so much money, so much tech, and so much entitlement is just toxic.
One difference may be that the eastern elites have a long enough view of family history to have seen siblings of each generation fare quite variously, covering the whole range between great success and utter failure -- with most on some middle ground. The new money, by contrast, believes their recent success puts them and their descendants forever in a class above, fit to rule the world. True class, old-money style, involves a touch of honest humility.
Some of that "old" money came from slavery. For example, Brown University got its money from the slave owning Brown family, which I am distantly related to (sans the slaves, and the money). Time does not make that money any cleaner. The proceeds probably went to Wall Street, the way the Mafia invests its loan sharking proceeds in actual businesses to launder them.
Newer money came from the old "trusts," and boring industries like making tin cans.
If people can get over thinking they are so wonderful, humility might set in. But they would have to stop acting like predators first.
A generation or two ago that book would have been written by a Harvard student. Kids know where the money, power and status are. And it shifted to the Stanford campus.
"The best way of doing that would be by teaching actual humanities from real humanists who understand the transformative power of this course of study." I certainly agree.
I've had the thought for a while that one of the missions of a "truly" elite university ought to instill humility into its students, along with scholarship and all of the other associated virtues. To that end, I fantasize that they require all non-STEM students to keep taking more and more advanced math classes until the students receive no better than a C. It might tensor calculus, or combinatorics, or group theory. Till the students learn that there's a limit to how smart they are. For STEM majors, it's a bit more of a challenge (for me) to come up with an equivalent humility-teaching topic. Perhaps it could be the choice of the student, pursue a topic outside of your major until you get a C.
The idea is more than a bit pollyanna-ish. Universities pursue endowment-enhancement rather than social or national benefit.
Doubt that changing the curricula will make much difference. I cite Occam's razor: these students have ben climbing a ladder all their lives, and the goal is to real the top.
This is not new. In the 1980's I think there was a study of what the graduates of Yale wanted to do after school, and something like a quarter wanted to work at Boston Consulting. So, what the h--- did they go to Yale for, to chase more money than they already had? What a waste of time for a so-called education!
I think you’re on to something, MLP. Granted what you outline above may not be workable. That said, having to grovel a bit can be quite beneficial to creating an improved moral compass.
Thieves steal because they are thieves not because they are poor. Having lived in a working class neighborhood for many years, I have made this observation. Middleclass liberals constantly get it backwards. You think people commit crime because they are poor, when in reality they are poor because they commit crime. The assumption that being poor makes you more a criminal is a slap in the face of the majority of poor, who are honest.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao were noted effective altruists. They justified their actions and evils by claiming that they were building a better future. People used to be more suspicious of this kind of reasoning, but this century has seen its dramatic return.
Alexander the Great wanted to rule the world. Why? For the glory of it. He only stopped because his troops rebelled after 10 continuous years of war and being away from home. He created the largest empire the world had seen up to that point. The Romans created a larger one but it took them 100's of years. He did it in 10. Same difference here. It's for the glory of it. Always has been, always will be.
Holy frak. The older I get, the more I realize that I am not cynical enough.
This effective altruism, which uses “the ends justifies the means” as an excuse reminds me of the Eugenics Movement of a century ago, which was popular across the political spectrum, and it only mostly died when the Allies saw the death camps and realized where that road ended; however, even after the banning of sterilizations and the tightening of rules for medical experimentation after the war, sterilizations in California and North Carolina as well as the as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment continued into the early 1970s.
Too many people think that they can do better than God for whatever reason and use their belief in their own superiority to justify acting as a god, denying the need for the humility necessary to attain true wisdom; their ends, whatever they are, are always justified by whatever means that they choose.
I'm not at all surprised by Phoebe Gates. Her dad has convinced his billionaire friends to set up foundations to better the world. What do they do? Fund abortions globally, sterilize Africans, distribute needles to drug addicts, mass vaccinations using experimental drugs, etc. It's a utilitarian's wet dream where the ends justify the means. Except it's a nightmare we are all living through.
What did Bill Gates ever DO, except seize control of America's desktop? He created the original post-IBM tech monopoly. He also was a spoiled kid who came from an affluent family, and acted like one:
Buffet gave $61 billion to the Gates Foundation before he cut them off this year. And it wasn’t because Gates was funding abortions and all that other stuff, but because Gates’ association with Epstein. The Buffet family foundations continue to fund abortion, etc.
Not claiming Buffett is a saint. He is a numbers guy, which he at least acknowledges. He is in it purely for the numbers, not the mansions. A lot of his businesses are morally trivial, if not exploitative.
I am referring to his family foundations, not his businesses. Buffett has donated $billions to abort babies to keep populations down in America and in Africa. He’s entitled to spend his money how he sees fit, but I, as a non-utilitarian, think his means and his ends are morally reprehensible.
Your comment reminded me of a tee shirt I saw once long ago. It said, "Nouveaux Riche Is Better Than No Riche." Altruism is about what's good for all. Effective altruism is about what's good for me. We're all Bozos on this bus, so let's look after everyone.
One usually finds out someone went to Stanford / Harvard etc. within minutes of meeting them because they tell you. Why? Cuz it works for them. Even after recent and past scandals, “cred” will continue to work.
First question for the head of Stanford, and the board:
"How could you let this happen, right under your noses?"
Second question: "Why should you not be removed, for dereliction of duty?"
They can't blame Epstein, Trump, or the weather for this. But do I smell "entitlement?" Reminds me of the Varsity Blues scandal: entitled people who think they can do anything they want. They've been winning so long, it comes to seem normal, the natural order of things.
Everybody wants to live on the top. And they can tell themselves they are good people who came "on behalf of all mankind." Right.
Like Lenin.
Harvard also has some explaining to do. And a lot of other institutions and people.
Beware ambitious, confident people. They want to run everything. They are the winners. They got to the top. But of what?
I'm trying to figure out why Stanford is the common denominator here, versus other elite colleges. Maybe there's a phenomenon similar to "nouveaux riche" that's "nouveaux puissant" (newly powerful) or "nouveaux altruist" -- these kids (and their parents) see no limits and no downsides to exercising their power and purported "do-good-ism" as they see fit. Maybe the eastern, old-money elites lack the need to show off and or exploit their power in the way that newly minted elites do. Or maybe the combination of being on an Elysian Fields-like campus surrounded by so much money, so much tech, and so much entitlement is just toxic.
One difference may be that the eastern elites have a long enough view of family history to have seen siblings of each generation fare quite variously, covering the whole range between great success and utter failure -- with most on some middle ground. The new money, by contrast, believes their recent success puts them and their descendants forever in a class above, fit to rule the world. True class, old-money style, involves a touch of honest humility.
Some of that "old" money came from slavery. For example, Brown University got its money from the slave owning Brown family, which I am distantly related to (sans the slaves, and the money). Time does not make that money any cleaner. The proceeds probably went to Wall Street, the way the Mafia invests its loan sharking proceeds in actual businesses to launder them.
Newer money came from the old "trusts," and boring industries like making tin cans.
If people can get over thinking they are so wonderful, humility might set in. But they would have to stop acting like predators first.
A generation or two ago that book would have been written by a Harvard student. Kids know where the money, power and status are. And it shifted to the Stanford campus.
Next it will be China.
"The best way of doing that would be by teaching actual humanities from real humanists who understand the transformative power of this course of study." I certainly agree.
I've had the thought for a while that one of the missions of a "truly" elite university ought to instill humility into its students, along with scholarship and all of the other associated virtues. To that end, I fantasize that they require all non-STEM students to keep taking more and more advanced math classes until the students receive no better than a C. It might tensor calculus, or combinatorics, or group theory. Till the students learn that there's a limit to how smart they are. For STEM majors, it's a bit more of a challenge (for me) to come up with an equivalent humility-teaching topic. Perhaps it could be the choice of the student, pursue a topic outside of your major until you get a C.
The idea is more than a bit pollyanna-ish. Universities pursue endowment-enhancement rather than social or national benefit.
Doubt that changing the curricula will make much difference. I cite Occam's razor: these students have ben climbing a ladder all their lives, and the goal is to real the top.
This is not new. In the 1980's I think there was a study of what the graduates of Yale wanted to do after school, and something like a quarter wanted to work at Boston Consulting. So, what the h--- did they go to Yale for, to chase more money than they already had? What a waste of time for a so-called education!
Want to give it a shot anyway? Some advice:
https://www.casestar.io/schools/yale-university/bcg
Kinda like trying to get into Skull and Bones, the famously secret "society":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones
The entry rules to the Elite keep changing. But people still want IN.
Everyone else will be OUT.
I think you’re on to something, MLP. Granted what you outline above may not be workable. That said, having to grovel a bit can be quite beneficial to creating an improved moral compass.
Thieves steal because they are thieves not because they are poor. Having lived in a working class neighborhood for many years, I have made this observation. Middleclass liberals constantly get it backwards. You think people commit crime because they are poor, when in reality they are poor because they commit crime. The assumption that being poor makes you more a criminal is a slap in the face of the majority of poor, who are honest.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao were noted effective altruists. They justified their actions and evils by claiming that they were building a better future. People used to be more suspicious of this kind of reasoning, but this century has seen its dramatic return.
Also Hitler, and Jim Jones, and more. Different brands, same business strategy.
Haven't you heard? Tech/Billionairism is the new Socialism.
https://psychedelicscene.com/2026/06/17/billionaire-ism-trauma-and-psychedelic-healing/
People who never experience:"enough."
They never read John Bogle's book by that name. They are hoarders.
https://cre.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Review_Enough.pdf
Alexander the Great wanted to rule the world. Why? For the glory of it. He only stopped because his troops rebelled after 10 continuous years of war and being away from home. He created the largest empire the world had seen up to that point. The Romans created a larger one but it took them 100's of years. He did it in 10. Same difference here. It's for the glory of it. Always has been, always will be.
Thank you, Ted for this brilliant and illuminating post.
Evangelical mega churches para church orgs have been very guilty of this. Cover up abuse because the ministry is too important to call it to account.
There is even a term for it "Prosperity theology "
It’s broader than that…
But in Christianity, that is where that particular evil starts. that it has expanded ?? well that is what evil seems to do.
The Catholic Church? Prosperity gospel there?
For the preacher, who gets a private jet:
https://thechristiantribune.com/this-pastor-worth-760-million-says-he-needs-a-private-jet-because-of-demons/
https://aerocorner.com/blog/american-pastors-with-private-jets/
Why do these frauds even have followers? Do people like being fleeced?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-NwKD9laZw
DamifIknow, but they have been around all my life and I'm 73
Jerry Falwell had a private jet. I rode in it. He didn’t strike me as prosperity gospel.
Falwell’s son was definitely “all-in” on prosperity gospel.
Personally, I would never publicly volunteer that I had ever flown on a Falwell jet……
Why not?
Holy frak. The older I get, the more I realize that I am not cynical enough.
This effective altruism, which uses “the ends justifies the means” as an excuse reminds me of the Eugenics Movement of a century ago, which was popular across the political spectrum, and it only mostly died when the Allies saw the death camps and realized where that road ended; however, even after the banning of sterilizations and the tightening of rules for medical experimentation after the war, sterilizations in California and North Carolina as well as the as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment continued into the early 1970s.
Too many people think that they can do better than God for whatever reason and use their belief in their own superiority to justify acting as a god, denying the need for the humility necessary to attain true wisdom; their ends, whatever they are, are always justified by whatever means that they choose.
I'm not at all surprised by Phoebe Gates. Her dad has convinced his billionaire friends to set up foundations to better the world. What do they do? Fund abortions globally, sterilize Africans, distribute needles to drug addicts, mass vaccinations using experimental drugs, etc. It's a utilitarian's wet dream where the ends justify the means. Except it's a nightmare we are all living through.
Buffet has opted out of it, FWIW.
What did Bill Gates ever DO, except seize control of America's desktop? He created the original post-IBM tech monopoly. He also was a spoiled kid who came from an affluent family, and acted like one:
https://finurah.com/2025/07/30/bill-gates-paid-28-a-day-for-13-years-to-store-a-porsche-he-couldnt-drive-until-u-s-law-changed/
Buffet gave $61 billion to the Gates Foundation before he cut them off this year. And it wasn’t because Gates was funding abortions and all that other stuff, but because Gates’ association with Epstein. The Buffet family foundations continue to fund abortion, etc.
Not claiming Buffett is a saint. He is a numbers guy, which he at least acknowledges. He is in it purely for the numbers, not the mansions. A lot of his businesses are morally trivial, if not exploitative.
I am referring to his family foundations, not his businesses. Buffett has donated $billions to abort babies to keep populations down in America and in Africa. He’s entitled to spend his money how he sees fit, but I, as a non-utilitarian, think his means and his ends are morally reprehensible.
Excellent. Thank you.
Grandson of distinguished WW2 Gen. Lucian Truscott ??
Your comment reminded me of a tee shirt I saw once long ago. It said, "Nouveaux Riche Is Better Than No Riche." Altruism is about what's good for all. Effective altruism is about what's good for me. We're all Bozos on this bus, so let's look after everyone.
Yeah, let's bring up Varsity Blues while we are looking at Stanford.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/the-stanford-sailing-coachs-defense
https://www.stanford.edu/varsity-blues-film
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/sports/stanford-varsity-blues-college-admission.html
So, who do you believe? Is that all smoke, no fire?
One usually finds out someone went to Stanford / Harvard etc. within minutes of meeting them because they tell you. Why? Cuz it works for them. Even after recent and past scandals, “cred” will continue to work.
Far too often ancient wisdom is neglected.
Psalm 16:18: "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall".
This applies to every person in the entire world.
Just for the record, Sam B-F did not attend Stanford. He is an MIT grad.
He just grew up on the campus for all intents and purposes.
First question for the head of Stanford, and the board:
"How could you let this happen, right under your noses?"
Second question: "Why should you not be removed, for dereliction of duty?"
They can't blame Epstein, Trump, or the weather for this. But do I smell "entitlement?" Reminds me of the Varsity Blues scandal: entitled people who think they can do anything they want. They've been winning so long, it comes to seem normal, the natural order of things.
Everybody wants to live on the top. And they can tell themselves they are good people who came "on behalf of all mankind." Right.
Like Lenin.
Harvard also has some explaining to do. And a lot of other institutions and people.
Beware ambitious, confident people. They want to run everything. They are the winners. They got to the top. But of what?