The article examines the specific features of diplomatic training in Western countries in the context of shifting foreign policy approaches. The analysis focuses on the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Hungary, and Poland, which were selected for their distinct historical and geographical characteristics. The cases are grouped into dyads to facilitate comparisons both between pairs and within each dyad. The comparative framework is based on specific criteria, including the existence of specialized diplomatic training institutions, the range of international relations programs offered, the working language of foreign ministries, the depth and quality of foreign language education at relevant universities, the recruitment of foreign nationals into diplomatic services, the inclusion of international relations history in curricula, the availability of nationally tailored textbooks, and opportunities for professional retraining. The study draws on the conception of elitism reflecting a tetanizing discrepancy between meritocratic discourse and insidious practices devised to restrict access to the diplomatic profession, favoring candidates from elite backgrounds. This trend has reinforced the dominance of political elites in shaping foreign policy, often sidelining the broader public interest. The findings suggest that diplomatic training in these countries is primarily aimed at cultivating a skilled bureaucratic class drawn from privileged social groups to the detriment of meritocratic zeal. However, the increasing standardization of educational models and the prevalence of political appointments to senior diplomatic positions introduce a degree of flexibility into traditional training pathways. The development of diplomatic schools in Western countries highlights their growing dependence on domestic political elites. Not only do these specialized institutions provide professional education, but also act as gatekeepers, screening out candidates deemed unsuitable for diplomatic careers. This exclusivity reinforces the closed nature of diplomatic communities, diminishes incentives to pursue deeper professional expertise, and contributes to a decline in the quality of foreign policy analysis and decision-making.