Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life

As an admittedly privileged parent of two young girls (ages 4 and 6, to be exact), I have been on a quixotic mission to figure out what the ideal education looks like for this generation: Is it the best prep school money can buy? Homeschooling? Unschooling? Montessori? Waldorf? STEM-led? Boarding school? Charter school? Free online-based Khan Academy or Stanford High for 36k/year? What about the non academic components of extracurriculars, and how does this marry with early studies? More elusive yet has been the question of what early education is supposed to manifest when they reach young adulthood. Is it a ticket to the Ivies? An engineering college? What does that ideal college look like? Fundamentally, how can I as a parent ensure that I have successfully guided my daughters to a juncture where they may take the reigns in the quest for their own self-actualization? Does college even help with that, these days? More still, have I accomplished this enough in my own life to ensure I'm modeling "success" well enough for them? With every question came the growing unease that no school or system seemed to hold the answer, and that I wasn't capable of figuring it out on my end. Deresiewicz's book has not, unsurprisingly, answered all of these questions. It has, however, provided an excellent trail guide of what to expect at most Ivy League/elite institutions. The book is a much-needed, refreshing spanking of these universities as it speaks to how they've contributed to the morass of society's brilliant but confused and self-congratulatory "leaders." They have indeed bred a group of people who are largely capable but brittle, owing to the lack of time and guidance required to cultivate a sense of self. A lot of books provide great info on how to package and train your child like a show poodle to get into these elite institutions... but few of the authors are standing at the "goal" post explaining the negative consequences of playing the game. All parents I know understand that marching up the mountain sucks, but few like Deresiewicz have critiqued the view at the finish line. Fewer still highlight the obvious: the "finish line" of getting admissions is really just the start. My only initial criticism was that towards the end, the author came across as a bit like Holden Caufield deriding everything as "phony." Considering he too is shaped and moulded by the same privilege he condemns, it came across as somewhat hypocritical. My initial impression was that Deresiewicz had created a bit of a strawman in imagining this demographic to be so monstrously unlikeable as an easy way to puff it down. It wasn't until I watched the 2014 "20 Questions" video of the author at Harvard that I realized his analysis was spot-on. The panel's tone deaf, ardent defense of the status quo ("why can't investment bankers be soul searchers too," and, "why should professors be responsible in a "no souls left behind" project since we only have 4 years with students?") really proves his point. Scarily still was the audience's uproarious applause. What I first mistook as a disingenuous "not like other Ivy Leaguers"-attitude ended up being actually true: he's not. Moreover, he proved beautifully why this is a good thing, and the heads of Harvard proved why their farts don't smell like roses. The book and subsequent presentation really shook the notion that every parent should endeavor to send their child to such schools. Perhaps it's glib to take the anecdotal soundbites of these video presentations and extrapolate a broader picture, but when I explored these gate keepers of the most prestigious schools, too few of them come across as worthy of emulation. His book helped me drop my belief that where my children attend school is a reflection of my parenting (and by extension, that the better the school, the better the job I'll have done). While I was before dead set on both children using their college investment as a means to a career, I now align with the belief that it should help them become better people capable of creating a more just world. Instead of implementing a rigorous curriculum with the marker of success being a "5" on their AP tests, I'll be implementing more qualitative benchmarks: how did the material change their broader view? Did any of the material have that "aha" moment of, "this is about me and my place in the world?" I will learn to expose them to failure and comfort them after, rather than doing my best to shield them from it--another U-turn in my parenting philosophy. While it's embarrassing to admit that I did dabble with thoughts of what it means to map a child's future such that they had reasonable assurances of a T20 college admission in today's hyper-competitive environment, this book has convinced me otherwise. I understand why parents engage in this behavior, though, given that it's the safest kind of parenting. I too wanted the assurance that I as their earliest guide in life had led them to a path of success. I now see the fact that this kind of curation is both possible and successful is representation of the system's failures. While I would get that parenting gold star, it would likely be at the expense of my child's own agency--a crucial, yet overlooked thing. Moreover, it's learning the painfully uncomfortable point that what is best for a child--risk taking, failure, and u-turns--is antithetical to getting admissions to a top college. And the former needs to take priority over the latter, every time, Princeton be damned. Having said this, I don't know if an LAC is something worthy of promotion. In light of events like Kieran Battarchariya getting expelled for questioning the existence of microaggressions at UVA, I do worry about universities becoming less tolerant when their version of "truth" gets critiqued by ignorant students who need educating now more than ever; not censoring. It's my deepest hope that amazing schools still serve as a place where students can freely exchange thoughts, ideas, and questions... but the current climate is such that I do not take it as a given. "Excellent Sheep" is a book that I'll be re-reading over the years. In a sea of pop-psychology parenting books and college guides, I haven't found any to serve as a decent compass. This is one such book. I'm so grateful to the author for not necessarily giving me answers, but, as any good teacher does, teaching me how to ask better questions. Great book and a must-read for any other well-meaning but misguided parent like myself.

This is an interesting book written by a former Yale English professor who now works as a full-time writer. Its subject is made clear by the title: elite education today attracts and grooms 'excellent sheep'. Students are majoring in Economics rather than following their 'bliss' or indulging their 'passion'. Since radix malorum est cupiditas this represents a misuse of potential talent. It results in anxiety, confusion and soullessness. The solution is to abandon aristocracy and meritocracy and, for a change, try democracy. We should pay much more attention to class than to race or gender. We should pay much more attention to teaching than to research and we should pay much more attention to general education than to microspecialties. Some have criticized WD for focusing on these matters from an 'English perspective' but English is, for good or ill, the center of the humanities and the humanities are the center of undergraduate education. I would suggest, however, that his faith in great authors, great books and great ideas (all of which I share) are far harder to inculcate at a time when the English professoriate is likely to be more interested in gendered food spaces than in George Eliot. He uses Middlemarch as an example of a fount of wisdom. He is absolutely correct; I agree with his every word. However, Middlemarch is 613 pp. of dense text. Anyone who would assign it today would do so knowing that nearly all of the students would simply not read it. Meanwhile, the corporatist administrators would be urging the faculty to avoid expensive textbooks whenever possible and directing their students to sources available gratis on the internet. In other words, the situation is far worse than WD, a product and denizen of the ivies, appreciates. The ivies are his subject, however, but then he advises those who would seek an authentic education at a reasonable price to transfer from the ivies to an honors program at a public flagship institution. The book is part analysis of our current plight (much of it very cogent, in my opinion) and part of it is 'self-help'—self-help for students and self-help for our society. There the tone is much more hortatory. Much of the advice is good. Note that this is not a scholarly book, though part of it is built upon scholarly materials. There is no index; there is no bibliography; there are no page numbers to accompany the references to secondary materials. This makes the book more 'direct', more 'readable', more 'accessible' and more personal. The f-word is used on several occasions to reinforce the author's anger and frustration over our current situation. I like the fact that the author is willing to entertain the usefulness of scholarship often labeled 'conservative' as well as the notion that some of our recent prominent democrat politicians have been as great at failing as republicans. I think that one of the most telling points is the fact that a student seeking an authentic education today will by and large have to seek it for himself. The current academic structures militate against both quality and depth. He is quite right to report Menand's trenchant observation that faculty today are largely unequipped to develop a broad and deep curriculum because they would sit at the starting gate waiting for the students to tell them what they want. Certainly the corporatist administrators care for little more than what the students want because that will get them what they want: the tuition dollars to spend on expanded bureaucracies and grotesque administrative salaries. Bottom line: highly recommended for anyone contemplating an ivy-league education, but perforce less useful for the vast majority of American citizens who will pursue higher education at second and third tier regional public universities.

Here is the review of this book I just posted on my www.racebannon.com blog site (in short, I love this book): It tugs at my convictions to offer a great review for a book that I just finished reading, Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite, by William Deresiewicz. There is a tendency that all of us succumb to that prompts us to discount an entire work of writing if amid the words lies anything that runs counter to our opinions. Such is the case with this book and I am proud that I have resisted that tendency because the book is, frankly, marvelous. The main contention of the book is that the higher education systems, in particular the elite systems represented by the likes of Harvard and Yale, have developed over time into systems that produce graduates focused on the wrong things and proliferating an out of touch elite class. I have no bones to pick with that premise. The arguments Deresiewicz lays out in the book are compelling and convincing and rings true alongside many anecdotal experiences I have had when confronted with people educated at such institutions. And yes, there are certainly exceptions to every rule, including this one, since I do have friends educated at these universities who are anything but focused on the wrong things or out of touch. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be the norm. But to be fair to those elite universities and their graduates, I have seen much the same misguided focus amid graduates from much less esteemed universities as well. While Deresiewicz focuses primarily on elite universities, he does also point out that the faults in the system have trickled down into university and college institutions at virtually every level. So where do I diverge from the arguments in the book as I alluded to at the beginning of this review? I disagree with the author when he poses his argument, mostly implied throughout the book, that everyone should attend college. As anyone who has read my book, The Art of Self Education: How to Get a Quality Education for Personal and Professional Success Without Formal Schooling, or any of my other writings on the topic knows, I believe that while college is absolutely an appropriate path for some people, it is not necessarily the appropriate path for others. I stand by my belief that we must value education attained in many ways. And maybe the author doesn't entirely disagree with my stance. I can't be sure. Perhaps he does realize that a good educational option for many is a post-high school education attained in many ways, either with higher education schooling a part of it or not part of it at all. I'm going on what I perceived as I read the book and maybe if the author and I sat down over coffee we'd realize we're more in agreement than disagreement on that. Regardless, the entirety of the book is so wonderful that I must set aside that nit pick and strongly and vehemently suggest you read the book. The writing is among the best nonfiction writing I've read in a long time. Deresiewicz crafts his language so eloquently that it often approaches poetic. I found myself highlighting passage after passage because I was so taken with how the thought was adroitly expressed. I'm likely to quote Deresiewicz often in the future. Deresiewicz is a skilled writer with a mastery of language many working writers aspire to. So reading the book is a joy. But the most important thing I feel the book does for the reader is foster a sense of why education is so important and, even more importantly, what kind of education is vital to considering oneself well educated. The author hammers home the idea that we should be encouraging liberal arts educations more than we do, a sentiment with which I agree wholeheartedly. Anyway, do yourself a favor. Buy this book. Read it. Revel in its well-crafted language. And most importantly, let his passion for a liberal arts education seep into your pores and infect you with the same passionate embrace of self-improvement through education. You'll be glad you took my advice.

"Excellent Sheep" is a brilliant analysis that made me reflect on my life, not just my college days long ago in the '60s at plenty of non-elite colleges and universities, undergraduate and postgraduate, as I fought the draft and the '70s PhD glut. It was also an uncomfortable read that took far longer to complete than I initially thought. That was partly due to the critical thoughts it evoked about the value of my education but also the challenge it threw up throughout---the author did admirable justice to the deep-rooted rot, the true enormity of the problem---that incremental change will never be enough; the whole system needs radical alteration. But who will do it? and how? Who will take on the many self-deceived "entitled little s***" and turn them against a system that has rewarded them their whole lives? Will it involve a mass movement, in which case education will probably be a side issue, one of its more peripheral goals, as it concentrates on living wages and slashing the military budget, or will the required changes be effected somehow from the inside, by an enlightened minority of deans and presidents and hopefully college students who see the handwriting on the wall? Two complaints: The book should have said more about the Occupy movement, the response it evoked, and its suppression. In addition, Deresiewicz's contempt for parents pushing their children through the admission hoops to get into elite colleges and universities largely misses the poignancy of their situation. Of course, his outrage is refreshing and an avoidance of sentimentality admirable; yet it can also cloud a full grasp of what's really going on in these wealthy families. Unlike the confidence of the old aristocracy that could point to real, concrete achievements like Ford Motor Company and U.S. Steel, the present parental elite---how many themselves went to the Ivy League?---knows its achievements are largely built on sand. They know the old saw as well as we do: "What does Goldman Sachs make?" These parents have seen the rising inequality since the middle-1970s and see themselves not as its cause and certainly not as its victims, but as equally subject to it; they see everything in flux, nothing fixed, nothing solid---"everything solid melts into air"---the future, they guess, will be as unlike the past as the 1950s were unlike the 1970s when they came of age. The employment opportunities their parents had, their own children's grandparents, are as unlike their own work experiences as they imagine their children's work world will be unlike theirs! So what are they to do? Like excellent sheep they turn to what they hope is a guarantee.The Ivy League, if anything is, seems solid and substantial and eminently safe, it seems like it will ensure a place for their children. After all, isn't that its implied siren song? What else is there, with threats coming from every quarter from climate change to ISIS to folks they imagine with pitchforks charging up the path to the castle? In short, late capitalism in the United States---which specializes in making nothing but decay and corruption and hypes the slick bulls*** of entrepreneurialism and start-ups---has a huge superfluous population in dying small cities and towns not to mention the countryside that is restive and sitting around unorganized but that has kids, too, as Deresiewicz points out, with hopes just a little less forlorn than their parents' and a willingness to work super-hard. I suggest that elite parents know all this on some subliminal level and it deeply worries them; they sense their own work accomplishments are specious and are desperate to protect their kids so they don't end up sitting on a stoop somewhere in some decaying small city staring into space---every elite parent's worst nightmare. Their sense of entitlement is skin-deep and wholly defensive. I think the author largely missed this pathetic side of elite parents' psychology. And it's important politically because in building a new system we will need to appeal to the support of not just students but of adults as well (even parents sick to death and guilty about what they're doing to their kids). Let me put it this way: The book would have been stronger if Bill Deresiewicz had devoted a chapter to addressing the concerns and fears of parents of the students he so clearly respects and whose futures he cherishes. Roger Fraser

Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite & the Way to a Meaningful Life – A Book Review By Dr. S. Brook Henderson This book, written by William Deresiewicz and first copyrighted in 2014, is a hardbound book that covers the value of higher education. Although the book doesn’t have any special features such as cartoons or illustrations, it is written in medium type with relatively short paragraphs, which makes it easy to read. The ISBN is 978-1-4767-0271-1 for the hardbound book and 978-1-4767-0173-5 for the ebook. Free Press is the publisher and it is available at my local library, so probably at yours as well. Dr. Deresiewicz used to be a professor at Yale and he writes this book about the system of elite education and what it does to kids. This book is written in a personal, conversational style that seems to have the author speaking directly to the reader. Clearly, it is a powerful critique of our present educational system, beginning with the way students are shepherded into elite schools and spanning some critical questions about college. The book is intended for anyone who is interested in education in general and our current college system. This book is a forceful indictment of the current college system and what happens to kids who are on the fast track to success. Deresiewicz states that these students have learned how to please their teachers and coaches over the course of their school years and that the process has robbed themselves of introspective abilities that could benefit their stressed, often depressed, state of mind. He speaks forcefully about this, saying at one point, “They’ve learned to ‘be a student,’ not to use their minds.” He says very few students are passionate about ideas. They are focused on success – getting As – not on the thrill of learning and challenging the status quo. In discussing the history of elite schools and how circumstances got to be the way they are, Deresiewicz looks to the industrial revolution and the wealth it created as the genesis of the elite school. He discusses the racism that developed as the gap between the wealthy and “the great unwashed” increased and how it impacted college enrollments. He says that the baby boomers appearance on the college scene created another revolution, moving enrollments in elite colleges from aristocracy to meritocracy. He declares that the system that came out of the 1960s is the same one we are living with today. The book is organized topically, from describing the “sheep” (the students), to self-examination to ask the question, “What is College For?,” to Schools and on to Society as a whole. In answering the question of the purpose of college, Deresiewicz says that “return on investment” is the phrase talked about today. It is, in his opinion, all about getting a good job. He maintains that students don’t hear about deeper questions such as whether jobs, financial security and national prosperity are the other things that matter. He encourages this type of questioning and posits that the first purpose of college is to teach its students to think – to be skeptical, to reach one’s own conclusions and to “find yourself.” A little over half of the book is dedicated to describing how students are wronged by college, but then Deresiewicz gives the reader the answer to the School dilemma. And it is (drum roll, please): a four-year liberal arts education. Oh, with very good teachers. A liberal arts education will provide the skill of thinking, along with reading great books, according to Deresiewicz. Finally, he discusses the cost of the system of elite education to our society as a whole. He says that it is bringing back racial and fiscal inequality and cites lots of statistics to support his assertion. At last he attacks our political system as being elitist and calls for us to leave aristocracy and meritocracy behind as we try democracy. I was with Dr. Deresiewicz right up until his answer to all the elite college system woes culminated in a liberal arts education. Really? Oh, with very good teachers. That should fix everything. While I agreed with many points in the book, I found his prescriptions to be simplistic at best and naïve at worst. He speaks passionately about his beliefs, which I admire, and backs them up with statistics. As a critical thinker, though, I know that statistics can be skewed and looking at a topic through a specific lens can distort that topic. I wonder if that is what happened to this author. In taking a hard look at elite colleges today, was his lens of “something is terribly wrong” sufficient to give the reader a skewed view of his topic? I came away with the impression that this is one of those books that is great if you already agree with the author’s basic premises. If you don’t agree, or if you don’t have the same context for the information he presents, it is an easy-to-read rant. The book does challenge some elitist views of race and economic standing and it is true that, in the U.S. today, the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer (and smaller). Whether a liberal arts education and democratizing colleges will solve those issues, is difficult for me to believe.

Excellent Sheep by William Deresiewicz, was a kind of enlightenment experience for me. The book denounces the American elite education (i.e., Ivies) by disclosing all its dark sides and negative impacts on the students, faculty, and the society at large. It was by far the most engaging and brutally honest voice by a humanist I have recently encountered. The book argues that the culture of elite schools are not concerned about the "real education" (by which he means "liberal arts" - that encourages one to think independently and pursue his or her own dreams instead of others') except producing "leaders" by which they mean (according to the author) the most successful people at the top of everything. Author argues from both his experience and various testimonials that students at these schools, however hard worker they may be, are by and large the product of American educational system beginning with primary school and tend to be full of egoism and self-pomposity for which they are really to blame as much as the school and the system which feed them endless compliments to the extent they "don't know what to do with". Also, it is very difficult for even the very few outliers who want to listen to their own voice to pursue their own paths, when their peers are working 24/7 in resume building and getting prestigious internships. Students at the most prestigious schools are pressured in every direction, from friends, parents, faculty, to pursue "success". How in such an environment, he asks, can one think for oneself? The author also argues that even the quality of teaching at these schools is far from satisfying as the system gives incentives to the faculty based on the quantity of research, not the quality of teaching. Thus, time devoted to teaching tends to become less valuable than time devoted to research. Teaching becomes less important than research. The author writes that great scholars do not necessarily mean great teachers. Research and teaching are very different field. He writes that great teachers do not teach courses. They teach students. He advises that if one wants to get a real education, he should consider going to public institutions or liberal arts colleges where professors tend to put more effort in teaching and interacting with students who are also less focused on success than their peers at top schools. I got the answers from this book I was seeking during my freshman year - if the most prestigious schools will provide the better environment for education than the less prestigious ones, which answer was no by any factors - culture, students, or faculty.

Would I recommend this book? Yes. Ok, why? The book does an excellent job of raising innate questions (through example and anecdote) as to why one would want to go to an Ivy League University, and also challenges you to consider what may come of the decision. This I feel is of value. What troubles me is that many will interpret and internalise the message of the book as a justification for critiquing the tiered education system we have (in America) as opposed to accepting it for what it is, or moving to lobby to change aspects of it. In short, do not use this book to justify a status quo, it can and should serve a greater purpose. Let me propose that a key point to absorb from the book is that life is not a meritocracy, that is where achievement is based solely on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. Life is driven by and enabled by our social and economic networks. To be clear life is not a fair or equal system - our role as a society is to acknowledge this and to work to make our society more equal. This book can play a part in that our moral responsibility. As the book articulates the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) matriculation process prior to the 1960's has been replaced with an equivalent all be it, different process - the rules are different but the result the same. The new process requires a longer term financial commitment from parents and has a longer-term financial impact on the children arguably reducing the outcome choices of the child attending college. Why then the recommendation to read the book? The only way to truly harness or change a system is to be aware of it. This book does a great job providing the reader with an awareness of the system, its advantages and its foibles. My advice is to harness the system not to berate it. Life is unfair, but you can use an unfair system to your advantage if you are aware of it, better yet as part of the system, you can help change it to make it better. In summary, it is an interesting read and has some good references that are worth digging into. If you can absorb its broader message and be self-aware as too the situation it portrays I recommend it.

This critique of the elite higher education system is an excellent book by a former Yale English professor that should be read by every university president, college admissions officer, and student headed to college, because it applies to all colleges in some degree. This does not mean that it is without bias. In my view, the major problem with higher education today is the indoctrination of students in the PC-progressive world view. Deresiewicz either doesn’t notice this or thinks it is how things should be, because he is a progressive. Universities believe in every kind of diversity except diversity of opinion. Saying anything not PC in the prevailing zeitgeist is the quickest way out of the university for a student or a professor. Thomas Sowell, PhD says, “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.” With a school-teacher father, I didn’t have the money or academic background to think about college. I made the best decision of my like; I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after high school in 1964. If you want diversity and an education in people very different from you, the Corps is the place. You will meet real people solving real problems. I learned more there than in college. Following Vietnam, I left the Corps to go to college, planning a political career, earning an AA in Liberal Arts and a BA in government. I had to take the SATs to get in, and four years after my dismal high school efforts, I scored in the 95/98 percentile. A counselor at MWCC advised me to apply to Clark University, but I didn’t want the debt and went to University of Massachusetts. When I was at U-Mass in 1970, there were two Republicans on the political science faculty. The rest were Democrats or Socialists. It is probably worse now. We undergrads knew we were there to pay the bills, as few resources we devoted to teaching. I found better instructors at both MWCC and Fitchburg State, where I earned a masters’ in history. (Only because I love history.) The year I graduated from U-Mass, I was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate. I was the only U-Mass grad in the body. I served five terms, earning my masters’ at night, and spending six more years in the Marine Reserves. And I retired undefeated to become an association executive, a career that was good to me until I was forced to retire in 2013 to have a lung transplant. I am Deresiewicz’s ideal; a student who set my own course. At 76, I continue to educate myself, reading at least a book a week, and continuously writing, including over 400 life stories for vets at the VA. I recommend you read Deresiewicz’s book, but think about both it and what I say with a skeptic’s heart. Still, I wish I’d had a course with him. Maybe he should apply for a position at a small public college? Robert A. Hall Author: "Quotes for the Conservative Heart"

nos obsesionamos con que nuestros hijos tengan buenas notas pero este libro describe muy bien que lo importante es que encuentren lo que les hace feliz y desarrollen más habilidades que las académicas. Para los que siguen el modelo americano de estudios esto es algo interesante que leer para mejor guiar a los hij@s.

William Deresiewicz sostiene, con un certo trasporto che la vera educazione dovrebbe essere qualcosa di molto diverso da quello che ci viene propinato durante la nostra infanzia, ma anche durante un percorso universitario. L’educazione dovrebbe essere quindi una ricerca costante, una voglia di scoprire e di porsi delle domande e dalla parte delle università ci dovrebbe essere la volontà di accogliere tutto questo. Invece, quest’ultime, sono concentrate sul denaro, sulla ricerca di fondi privati, sull’accendere mutui e finanziamenti ai giovani con la promessa di una carriera ricca di guadagni. In questo libro si guarda al mondo delle università con un occhio critico, nella speranza di cercare una soluzione e di proporre qualcosa di concreto. Dal mio punto di vista è una lettura un po’ lenta e a tratti pesante, ma serve per conoscere anche una realtà differente, al di fuori dei confini italiani, soprattutto per i ragazzi che desiderano andare a studiare all’estero, scelta tra le altre cose, che a livello personale, ritengo ottima. Buona lettura!

What to do if your students keep failing and their test results keep declining? Demand more money, of course. Education may no longer offer much to students, but it does provide a textbook example of civic corruption and Deresiewicz shows what blind support of a debased educational establishment really costs.

I wanted to love this - and read it as a (sort of recommended) precursor to Ken Robinson's works. It was disappointing and I quit at 1/2 way because I couldn't bear the repetitive nature of the argument. I agree totally with the overall message, that elite education is driven by the pressure of status, economic indicators, etc, but I felt it just kept saying this same thing in 50 different ways. In the end, the dull/repetitive quality of the writing/argument stopped me from continuing to the end. I've probably missed some big insights or directives in the last half, but I just couldn't continue.

Part 2 is amazing. Every parent should read it before sending their kid to college. We must understand they need space to develop their personality