When there is an oversupply of labor, we observe falling compensation for labor. If there were an overproduction of ‘elites’, we should expect to see less benefit and more distribution of wealth and power. Clearly the more reasonable explanation is that we are (and always have been) observing mimicking behavior by the non-elite, much like fashion.

Perhaps it is the same with the Ivy League. If you orient your life toward getting into an institution, club, or organization, then you are probably not elite in that context, even if they do let you in. It would be the other way around if you were. We can make that tautological if we define the elite as the points of accumulation for wealth and power. They do whatever interests them, and the rest of the world watches and competes to serve that interest.

I’m not sure that the concept of overproduction makes sense in that context. But perhaps there are many disappointed acolytes, as there are remorseful fashion buyers.

Well, for example, we see a PhD now most likely getting you and adjunct job, instead of a tenured professor. So you could view that as an oversupply of "elite labor", if you will, and falling compensation for that. A university education used to guarantee you a good job, and now it's not enough for that. Again, that level of "elite" is less rewarded than it used to be.

But I like your post. If you have to try to get in, then you don't really belong. That feels right to me. So what we have is an over-population of people who feel that they "should" belong, that they "deserve" to belong, and they're fighting to mimic hard enough that they can get in the door, and finding that it wasn't good enough. One of the principle ways they're trying to mimic is "Look, I have a degree too!" And they're finding that it isn't enough. They got into the "club" (those holding degrees), and found that being in the club didn't make you elite, because too many people were now in the club. The real elite moved on to other ways of showing who is and isn't elite.