What do you think?
Rate this book
Higher Education?: How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids---and What We Can Do About It
A quarter of a million dollars. It's the going tab for four years at most top-tier colleges. Why does it cost so much and is it worth it?
In this provocative investigation, the renowned sociologist Andrew Hacker and New York Times writer Claudia Dreifus make an incisive case that the American way of higher education―now a $420 billion-per-year business―has lost sight of its primary the education of our young people. They probe the true performance of the Ivy League, the baleful influence of tenure, an unhealthy reliance on part-time teachers, and supersized bureaucracies which now have lives of their own.
Hacker and Dreifus take readers from Princeton and Harvard to Evergreen State, revealing those institutions that need to adjust their priorities and others that are getting it right, proving that learning can be achieved―and at a much more reasonable price. Higher Education? is a wake-up call and a call to arms.
In this provocative investigation, the renowned sociologist Andrew Hacker and New York Times writer Claudia Dreifus make an incisive case that the American way of higher education―now a $420 billion-per-year business―has lost sight of its primary the education of our young people. They probe the true performance of the Ivy League, the baleful influence of tenure, an unhealthy reliance on part-time teachers, and supersized bureaucracies which now have lives of their own.
Hacker and Dreifus take readers from Princeton and Harvard to Evergreen State, revealing those institutions that need to adjust their priorities and others that are getting it right, proving that learning can be achieved―and at a much more reasonable price. Higher Education? is a wake-up call and a call to arms.
304 pages, Paperback
First published July 26, 2010
21 people are currently reading
583 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Hacker
34 books24 followersAndrew Hacker is an American political scientist and public intellectual.
He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at Queens College in New York. He did his undergraduate work at Amherst College. This was followed by graduate work at Oxford University, University of Michigan, and Princeton University where he received his PhD degree.
Hacker taught at Cornell before taking his current position at Queens.
His most recent book, Higher Education? was written in collaboration with Claudia Dreifus, his domestic partner. Professor Hacker is a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books.
He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at Queens College in New York. He did his undergraduate work at Amherst College. This was followed by graduate work at Oxford University, University of Michigan, and Princeton University where he received his PhD degree.
Hacker taught at Cornell before taking his current position at Queens.
His most recent book, Higher Education? was written in collaboration with Claudia Dreifus, his domestic partner. Professor Hacker is a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
October 6, 2010
Why is it today that most mass-produced, media-hyped, non-fiction books are mostly 250-288 pages, have similar typeset and graphically appealing covers, result--generally--in 2-3 Goodread stars, and are championed by websites like Slate or Boing-Boing or Wired or NPR: Planet Money?
Higher Education is that book. Will you learn something? Yes--below. Is it memorable? Only if it’s subject matter to which you’ve previously allocated zero brain bytes. Is it well-researched and convincing? Only enough to be shelved for 2 weeks at the front of big box book stores next to other glossy covers. Will you recommend it? I only recommend reading my review; it’s a cogent summary. One final note, the authors used the verb ‘bemused’ 5 times. In a random selection of 250,000 published words, ‘bemused’ should show up an average 0.78 times. That it appeared 5 times, and was used in a supercilious manner, bothered me. It set a tone of conceit, which, as the authors were involved in higher education themselves, seemed a bit hypocritical as the book was attacking the very kind of conceit they betrayed in their verbs.
Your time is valuable. Let’s laser-in.
1. The world of the professoriate displays the same burgeoning class disparity between rich and poor that has defined our greater American public during the late 1990s and 2000s. The Fortune 500 business CEO makes 300 times the wage of an average worker. Similarly, an Ivy League tenured professor can make almost 100 times the wage of a seasonal Teachers Assistant, upon which is piled more and more of the responsibility of classroom teaching, student contact, and grading and commenting on submitted work.
2. There is an overt, rigid pecking order among post-grad instructors. What used to be a demure, tacit understanding within the professoriate, is now a human resources class structure. It’s a crass and oft-lampooned personnel structure that allows tenured instructors a paltry workweek with only 10-hours of direct student contact. It also permits a 3-to-1 work-to-sabbatical ratio, while a nontenured, contingent instructor sometimes teaches 6 classes a week in person (and possibly several others online) for a fraction of the salary and only lumpenproletariat benefits.
3. The Ivy League (or Golden Dozen) universities recruit rarefied students by making the repeated claim that their institutions teach leadership--leadership above and beyond a heavy, challenging work load. There is absolutely no merit to this claim. Perhaps a lambskin from these thoroughbred universities can guarantee entry into positions of labor which historically offer the opportunity to lead. But, this relationship--if it indeed ever existed--is not transitive today, as there are increasingly well-rounded and competitive schools in the world.
4. Professors are bogged down with administrative overload. Further and further removed from the needs of a student body, professors are both encouraged and directed to be involved in councils and committees with official titles that could be laughed at during late night television skits.
5. College deans have never been more insulated and farther removed from shepherding quality academics at their institutions than they are right now, 2010. Perhaps not for a lack of caring, but deans are today money managers obsessed with better athletics, grants & contracts, esoteric research for the tenured minority, recruiting academic stars, conjuring ways to expand the university (overseas, satellite campuses), research centers, fundraising, trustee and alumni demands, ad naseum. “Once upon a time, university leaders were seen as sculptors of society; they were national figures, household names, frequently asked to serve on commissions, to comment on significant events, to participate in the public square. Today an average American would be hard-pressed to cite the name of a single college president. The short answer is that hardly any of them have done anything memorable, apart perhaps from firing a popular athletic coach.” (p. 39)
6. The biggest loser has been social sciences, the humanities. Four-year education has the increasing flavor of technical or vocational training. Some bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2008:
Equine management
Ornamental horticulture
Poultry science
Turf and grass management
Landscape architecture
E-commerce
Tourism management
Resort management
Knowledge management
Baking and pastry arts
Animation technology
Music therapy
Asian herbology
Welding technology
Furniture design
Advertising art
The authors “deem it a huge mistake to squander years that could and should be devoted to enriching young minds to...vocational training instead. To devote that irreplaceable period in one’s life to ornamental horticulture or pastry arts subverts a sensible purview of higher education.” (p. 101)
7. Teaching skills are abysmal. Too many reasons to list here. However, when a majority of students are unimpressed with a majority of their college professors, then asking for a simple definition of the problem is like asking for a definition of obscenity--you know it when you see it. The most overused mantra during research for the book was, “good teaching is only possible if professors are also active in research.” (p.82) Like the authors, I disagree, and I disagree with the taste of much bile in my throat.
8. The peddling of school loans has created at least 2 generations of long-term debtors at a point early in life when they can least afford being saddled with that responsibility. The ease of acquiring a loan has lurched in lock-step with rising admission costs.
9. The athletic incubus. The following are myths that have supported the explosion of athletic teams across all levels and leagues of college:
1. Intercollegiate competition builds school spirit.
2. Enrolling athletes creates a more diverse campus.
3. Expanding women’s sports imperils men’s programs.
4. Profits from well-attended sports help pay for other teams.
5. Men’s Sana in Corpore Sano.
6. Memorable experiences, meeting new people.
7. Varsity sports inspire loyalty and bolster donations.
10. Bottom line conclusions (without the elaboration offered by the authors):
1. The purpose of higher education is education.
2. Stop relying on loans.
3. Engage all students.
4. Make students use their minds.
6. Tenure serves no useful purpose.
7. Fewer sabbaticals, less research.
8. End exploitation of adjuncts.
9. Demand that the Golden Dozen deliver.
10. Presidents as public servants.
11. Spin off medical schools and research centers.
12. A hearing for techno-teaching.
13. Spread donations around.
These conclusions are about as pie-in-the-sky as governments extirpating themselves from the business of fiscal bailouts.
Skip the book, remember my notes. 2.5 stars.
Higher Education is that book. Will you learn something? Yes--below. Is it memorable? Only if it’s subject matter to which you’ve previously allocated zero brain bytes. Is it well-researched and convincing? Only enough to be shelved for 2 weeks at the front of big box book stores next to other glossy covers. Will you recommend it? I only recommend reading my review; it’s a cogent summary. One final note, the authors used the verb ‘bemused’ 5 times. In a random selection of 250,000 published words, ‘bemused’ should show up an average 0.78 times. That it appeared 5 times, and was used in a supercilious manner, bothered me. It set a tone of conceit, which, as the authors were involved in higher education themselves, seemed a bit hypocritical as the book was attacking the very kind of conceit they betrayed in their verbs.
Your time is valuable. Let’s laser-in.
1. The world of the professoriate displays the same burgeoning class disparity between rich and poor that has defined our greater American public during the late 1990s and 2000s. The Fortune 500 business CEO makes 300 times the wage of an average worker. Similarly, an Ivy League tenured professor can make almost 100 times the wage of a seasonal Teachers Assistant, upon which is piled more and more of the responsibility of classroom teaching, student contact, and grading and commenting on submitted work.
2. There is an overt, rigid pecking order among post-grad instructors. What used to be a demure, tacit understanding within the professoriate, is now a human resources class structure. It’s a crass and oft-lampooned personnel structure that allows tenured instructors a paltry workweek with only 10-hours of direct student contact. It also permits a 3-to-1 work-to-sabbatical ratio, while a nontenured, contingent instructor sometimes teaches 6 classes a week in person (and possibly several others online) for a fraction of the salary and only lumpenproletariat benefits.
3. The Ivy League (or Golden Dozen) universities recruit rarefied students by making the repeated claim that their institutions teach leadership--leadership above and beyond a heavy, challenging work load. There is absolutely no merit to this claim. Perhaps a lambskin from these thoroughbred universities can guarantee entry into positions of labor which historically offer the opportunity to lead. But, this relationship--if it indeed ever existed--is not transitive today, as there are increasingly well-rounded and competitive schools in the world.
4. Professors are bogged down with administrative overload. Further and further removed from the needs of a student body, professors are both encouraged and directed to be involved in councils and committees with official titles that could be laughed at during late night television skits.
5. College deans have never been more insulated and farther removed from shepherding quality academics at their institutions than they are right now, 2010. Perhaps not for a lack of caring, but deans are today money managers obsessed with better athletics, grants & contracts, esoteric research for the tenured minority, recruiting academic stars, conjuring ways to expand the university (overseas, satellite campuses), research centers, fundraising, trustee and alumni demands, ad naseum. “Once upon a time, university leaders were seen as sculptors of society; they were national figures, household names, frequently asked to serve on commissions, to comment on significant events, to participate in the public square. Today an average American would be hard-pressed to cite the name of a single college president. The short answer is that hardly any of them have done anything memorable, apart perhaps from firing a popular athletic coach.” (p. 39)
6. The biggest loser has been social sciences, the humanities. Four-year education has the increasing flavor of technical or vocational training. Some bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2008:
Equine management
Ornamental horticulture
Poultry science
Turf and grass management
Landscape architecture
E-commerce
Tourism management
Resort management
Knowledge management
Baking and pastry arts
Animation technology
Music therapy
Asian herbology
Welding technology
Furniture design
Advertising art
The authors “deem it a huge mistake to squander years that could and should be devoted to enriching young minds to...vocational training instead. To devote that irreplaceable period in one’s life to ornamental horticulture or pastry arts subverts a sensible purview of higher education.” (p. 101)
7. Teaching skills are abysmal. Too many reasons to list here. However, when a majority of students are unimpressed with a majority of their college professors, then asking for a simple definition of the problem is like asking for a definition of obscenity--you know it when you see it. The most overused mantra during research for the book was, “good teaching is only possible if professors are also active in research.” (p.82) Like the authors, I disagree, and I disagree with the taste of much bile in my throat.
8. The peddling of school loans has created at least 2 generations of long-term debtors at a point early in life when they can least afford being saddled with that responsibility. The ease of acquiring a loan has lurched in lock-step with rising admission costs.
9. The athletic incubus. The following are myths that have supported the explosion of athletic teams across all levels and leagues of college:
1. Intercollegiate competition builds school spirit.
2. Enrolling athletes creates a more diverse campus.
3. Expanding women’s sports imperils men’s programs.
4. Profits from well-attended sports help pay for other teams.
5. Men’s Sana in Corpore Sano.
6. Memorable experiences, meeting new people.
7. Varsity sports inspire loyalty and bolster donations.
10. Bottom line conclusions (without the elaboration offered by the authors):
1. The purpose of higher education is education.
2. Stop relying on loans.
3. Engage all students.
4. Make students use their minds.
6. Tenure serves no useful purpose.
7. Fewer sabbaticals, less research.
8. End exploitation of adjuncts.
9. Demand that the Golden Dozen deliver.
10. Presidents as public servants.
11. Spin off medical schools and research centers.
12. A hearing for techno-teaching.
13. Spread donations around.
These conclusions are about as pie-in-the-sky as governments extirpating themselves from the business of fiscal bailouts.
Skip the book, remember my notes. 2.5 stars.
October 4, 2013
This book is just utterly moronic. To be fair, I gave up after a few chapters, but who wants to continue reading after the authors propose to calculate the hourly pay of a professor purely on the basis of contact hours? They "readily acknowledge" that professors "do something outside their classroom and office hours", but since they have no hard measure of how much goes into teaching preparation it's excluded, and oh research you say? No, no, that's all just nonsense! Really folks; and then they draw a comparison with the hourly pay of lawyers, but instead of just looking at the hours where they "need to be at a specific place and time", their "office hours" are included. What do think happens in those hours guys? Ohhh they do legal research, write memos, that kind of thing; for some reason that does count as real work because lawyers will bill you by the hour while academics do not. Just amazing, and not in a good way. Another couple of highlights: according to the authors, the aims of higher education do not include creating a better citizenry, because hey did the founding fathers go to college? (what? is this even supposed to be an argument?), and who needs sexual harassment committees, because boy oh haha let's just poke fun at them because we all know that they are a waste of time right? This book deserves a public burning across college campuses as far as I'm concerned; alternatively, it could be used in a philosophy/critical thinking class, to illustrate fallacious reasoning in its many varieties.
April 19, 2012
I love books that bag on ivy league or expensive colleges. Mainly because I believe the schools are a crock of shit. And this book is out to expose the truth! Why are private colleges so expensive? What are you really paying for? One thing that I didn't know is that a huge chain of pointless jobs exist in these types of schools. Assistant to the Dean of First Years? Or some shit that we can't even afford in public schools (turns out is a good thing) that just coddles you longer. I never thought about all the pointless jobs "fancy" colleges have. SUCH A WASTE! And that "professors" are encouraged to publish, which takes time away from teaching and therefore undergrads get stuck with TA's. I didn't even know what one was until I went to UMass. We didn't have them at PCC or CSUN. And huge lectures? What is that? My biggest class was maybe 120 kids and even that, maybe it was around 60, I have no idea as it was still held in an actual classroom, not lecture hall. I sat in a lecture at BU with a friend of mine and the lecture was so huge, that I could sit there and read my Harry Potter book and no one noticed. I never had that at CSUN. And she paid how much for the pleasure of that? NO THANK YOU! And students today are taught that debt is standard and there is no way around that. What. The. Fuck. Ever. I fall into a fairly common place where I am not a minority, my grades were standard (aka not that great) and my parents have too much investments (according to colleges, we are supposed to sell everything to go to your fancy school) and therefore didn't qualify for scholarships or FAFSA or whatever. No way was I doing loans and because of that I ended up at (gasp!) state school. Ended up being the best thing ever for me. Pushed me out in the world more. I wasn't coddled. I have no debt. My resume was already a page long (with actual job experience, not some lame college-ish shit) when I graduated. It was a no loose situation for me.
Private schools (unless they cost as much as State) are the biggest waste of money for anyone, no matter which way you slice it. Branding is too overrated in this country. God, I miss the simple life in NZ and Australia sometimes. ANYWAY. Yeah, I liked this book, mainly because I agree with it. It was interesting to read about stuff I didn't know though and as always, made me so glad I didn't go to a fancy (overpriced) private school.
Private schools (unless they cost as much as State) are the biggest waste of money for anyone, no matter which way you slice it. Branding is too overrated in this country. God, I miss the simple life in NZ and Australia sometimes. ANYWAY. Yeah, I liked this book, mainly because I agree with it. It was interesting to read about stuff I didn't know though and as always, made me so glad I didn't go to a fancy (overpriced) private school.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 24, 2010
As an "insider" in Higher Education, I wonder how outsiders will respond to this expose. At times the authors are a bit unfair or a bit too quick to offer remedies. But they certainly diagnose some major problems that universities would do well to handle before some government agency or legislature does it for them. (That's already happening in many places.) Problems with non-educational spending (such as the huge, ridiculous amounts paid to coaches and athletic programs, for very little return), with tenure and an excessive emphasis on "research," narrowly defined, with curriculum, and with excessive layers of administration are all spotlighted. The book is well-researched. If you do work in a university, read this and take some ideas back to your university committees, faculty senates, and deans. If you don't work in a university, ask some people who do what they think, and remember: criticize higher education with care, because it's essential to our democracy. Don't destroy it in the process of reforming it. But it does need reforming. Doesn't every institution?
October 31, 2020
The writing was very dry, but I agreed with many of their points. The authors advocate for decreased spending on university administrators (I had no idea the amount of their salaries!) and abolish the tenure system, so that more students are able to afford college without excessive debt. Also, are sabbaticals really necessary??? The main argument that I did not agree with is to steer students away from technical/vocational-based majors or courses. They believe that students from the ages of 18-22 should be able to freely explore their mind through a liberal arts education, due to this developmental stage of life being an exploratory period. I DO think that this arbitrarily designated age group is too young to determine a life-long career for most individuals. However, it is unrealistic on the authors' part that more students, particular those of lower-income and/or those who struggle with the conventional academic system of test-taking and writing papers, would enjoy or succeed in a typical liberal arts educational setting.
June 6, 2011
I checked this out on a whim as I heard the authors being interviewed on NPR on my drive to the library. I like the big ideas they raise (abolish tenure, sabbaticals, & competitive athletics, send every American to college) but I was irritated by the argumentative tone in their writing. The sounded much more reasonable on the radio! I'm not connected to an academic community to know how much of a stir this created. Interesting proposals to think about, but I don't see any of them happening any time soon. I'm also slightly suspicious of their contention that the quality of students is high whether you're at one of "the 12" or a small community college. Another recent NPR story I heard was about students applying to low cost community colleges and dropping out as soon as they got the "change" from their grant checks. Is it snobbery if I ask if this really the same caliber of student you'd find at Harvard?
August 30, 2015
A very good analysis of what's wrong with higher education. I think the authors make excellent points about how college funds far too often go towards publication, tenured professors' salaries (whether or not they actually do anything worthwhile), state-of-the-art dormitories and gymnasiums, and sports teams instead of serving their purpose of educating undergraduates. I was also surprised to learn that most colleges actually *lose* money on athletics (I'd always thought athletics were major moneymakers for the schools).
With inflated prices making college more out of reach for all but the extremely wealthy (without incurring significant debt), I hope this book is read by people who can - and will - make a difference. Our current situation is not sustainable.
With inflated prices making college more out of reach for all but the extremely wealthy (without incurring significant debt), I hope this book is read by people who can - and will - make a difference. Our current situation is not sustainable.
July 28, 2017
This is a screed; it's not a particularly nuanced or insightful approach to issues in higher ed. The editorializing and snobbishly judgmental tone made me skeptical of many of the claims made in the book.
It's a shame because I'm extremely interested in higher education--and while I recognize the US system has plenty of issues, I didn't feel like I learned very much from Hacker and Dreifus. Perhaps they were going for a more editorial or journalistic tone, but I would've appreciated if they did a better job foregrounding their research.
It's a shame because I'm extremely interested in higher education--and while I recognize the US system has plenty of issues, I didn't feel like I learned very much from Hacker and Dreifus. Perhaps they were going for a more editorial or journalistic tone, but I would've appreciated if they did a better job foregrounding their research.
May 22, 2025
I'm currently reading a lot about higher education. This book is at the bottom of the barrel. More descriptively, it is cherry picking sour apples. The "evidence" consists of quotes from conversations, anecdotes, and an occasional number that is only partially reported.
The bad actors are Yale, Swarthmore, and Kenyon (who?). On the other hand, ASU and New Mexico State have it together. Florida Gulf Course was apparently a leader in online instruction, which consisted of vocabulary tests. At the time, online testing was rife with cheating. Besides the fact that such instructorless teaching does not help students with improving their communication skills, think critically, collaborate-unless you count cheating on the online tests, or perspective taking. These are all skills employers want graduates to have--and to be better than they currently are.
A reader would be better informed reading Derek Bok (Our Underachieving Colleges) or Remaking the American University (Zemsky, Wegner, and Massey).
The bad actors are Yale, Swarthmore, and Kenyon (who?). On the other hand, ASU and New Mexico State have it together. Florida Gulf Course was apparently a leader in online instruction, which consisted of vocabulary tests. At the time, online testing was rife with cheating. Besides the fact that such instructorless teaching does not help students with improving their communication skills, think critically, collaborate-unless you count cheating on the online tests, or perspective taking. These are all skills employers want graduates to have--and to be better than they currently are.
A reader would be better informed reading Derek Bok (Our Underachieving Colleges) or Remaking the American University (Zemsky, Wegner, and Massey).
September 13, 2022
The book outline some of the US higher institutions are having a policy deviated from the ideal of liberal art educations and becoming more focus on vocational training. More budget is spent in activities other than education. The book could be more convincing by adopting a more concise tone. As an academics, I think Prof. Hacker is highlighting some issues, particularly, the role a higher institutions play in the society. I am glad that I am lucky enough to see some colleagues committed to teaching (well not the majority).
October 27, 2019
Interesting thoughts on the reasons the cost of higher education is so outlandishly high, benefits of Ivy League/Name recognition versus less expensive schools and the point of Higher Education in the first place.
June 27, 2018
Offered some good insights.
July 26, 2021
Should have been 4.5 stars - everything here was brilliant except the discussion of affirmative action which if anything underplayed the impact of legacies
March 21, 2023
Really interesting research and discussion. While from 2010, many of the concerns raised are still relevant and true.
June 19, 2023
It was an interesting read that made it possible to have a glimpse at what the American system of higher education looks like. Despite being somewhat outdated, it was a good review…
October 7, 2011
Higher education in the United States is an almost half-trillion-dollars-a-year industry. About 2/3 of high school graduates, about 1/2 of all young people, go directly to college after high school. The reason they do so is usually not particular love of learning, but the desire to have a white-collar occupation, which means middle class status, given that globalization and the decline of private-sector unions have caused the people in the blue-collar occupations, on average, to live significantly worse than in the white-collar ones. Once in college, the students are taught by professors, or by adjuncts, which make up about half of the teachers. At Yale, a professor's salary is $820 per teaching and office hour; at a small liberal arts college in Ohio, it is $242. An adjunct, on the other hand, can be paid $8.65 an hour and have his family qualify for Medicaid; the authors call people like him the best-educated segment of the working poor. Now, this comparison may not be fair because in addition to teaching, the professor, unlike the adjunct, also does research; however, the authors say, the society needs to ask, how much of this research it really needs. There were 3,015 papers delivered at the 2007 meeting of the American Sociological Association; the authors say that few of them needed to be written. Still, in no other industry is the pay differential for people doing the same job so huge. The colleges save money on adjunct pay; what do they spend it on? Administrative staff, which has doubled per 1,000 students in the last 40 years; expensive sports facilities; varsity sports, in which as few as 1% of the students can participate; salaries of tenured full professors who cannot be forced into retirement. Now, the argument goes that tenure protects the professors from the political pressures of the society at large; however, the authors say that this is not really true: the administrators will find a way to get rid of a professor who does something really unpopular like call the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns", or speak out in favor of pedophilia. So despite all the adjuncts, college costs have risen by a factor of 4 in 30 years, compared to the consumer price index. Students now typically graduate with a few tens of thousands of dollars of debt; if they are unemployed or employed in a poorly paid job for a few years, the penalties can inflate the debt into the six figures. What do they get in return, other than the diploma, if that, which may or may not be the ticket into the middle class? Well, college graduates typically have more liberal views on social issues (for example, in favor of abortion rights) than high school graduates, but opinions differ on whether this is because their minds have been opened by education, or because they have been indoctrinated; among the faculty of Berkeley and Stanford, Democratic voters outnumber Republican ones 9:1; in the social sciences and the humanities, the ratio is several times higher.
How much higher education does the American economy need? The authors don't say it, but probably a lot less than it has now. Ha-Joon Chang mentions in one of his popular books that until the early 1990s, Switzerland had 1/3 of the university enrollment rate of the other rich countries, despite being one of the richest countries in the world, a giant of high-technology manufacturing. However, higher education is not just about the economy; it is supposed to awaken young people's minds. A young person's mind can be awakened if he is one of 400 students taking Economics 101, or if he is one of a potentially infinite number of students listening to online lectures and taking tests graded by the computer; it is not at all clear, in which case it will be awakened more fully. At the end the authors say that, just as during the 20th century high school education became available to most young Americans, so should non-vocational higher education during the 21st. When I read it, I checked that the Mathematics department of the City College of San Francisco teaches 14 sections of individual-instruction arithmetic, 14 more of group-instruction arithmetic, and 32 of elementary algebra; in contrast, there is 1 section of linear algebra, 1 of differential equations, and 1 of combined linear algebra and differential equations. The people taking arithmetic and algebra typically have a high school diploma, but either forgot these subjects, or never learned them in the first place. If this is what a high school diploma is worth, how much will a college diploma be worth if higher education becomes as universal as high school education?
How much higher education does the American economy need? The authors don't say it, but probably a lot less than it has now. Ha-Joon Chang mentions in one of his popular books that until the early 1990s, Switzerland had 1/3 of the university enrollment rate of the other rich countries, despite being one of the richest countries in the world, a giant of high-technology manufacturing. However, higher education is not just about the economy; it is supposed to awaken young people's minds. A young person's mind can be awakened if he is one of 400 students taking Economics 101, or if he is one of a potentially infinite number of students listening to online lectures and taking tests graded by the computer; it is not at all clear, in which case it will be awakened more fully. At the end the authors say that, just as during the 20th century high school education became available to most young Americans, so should non-vocational higher education during the 21st. When I read it, I checked that the Mathematics department of the City College of San Francisco teaches 14 sections of individual-instruction arithmetic, 14 more of group-instruction arithmetic, and 32 of elementary algebra; in contrast, there is 1 section of linear algebra, 1 of differential equations, and 1 of combined linear algebra and differential equations. The people taking arithmetic and algebra typically have a high school diploma, but either forgot these subjects, or never learned them in the first place. If this is what a high school diploma is worth, how much will a college diploma be worth if higher education becomes as universal as high school education?
August 19, 2013
Pg 211: Having college correlates with a more liberal posture on abortion. We can only hope and pray that when the college bubble bursts that our nation's posture on abortion will be corrected.
Pg 165: Title ix in 1982 brought women into sports but women's gymnastics is down. Soccer and softball are big, how about track?
Pg 72: Jeff Bezos is a graduate of Princeton and I saw him in the Georgetown Warehouse working the 2nd or 3rd Christmas season.
Pg 206: Geo. W Bush will be remembered for "no child left behind."
Pg 2: John Dewey's notion for education was preparation for democratic citizenship. Better yet heavenly citizenship.
Pg 45: The system has become a massive quiz show with the prize going to the man with his hand up first, says Harold Taylor follower of John Dewey.
Pg 44: WEB Dubois was sponsored by Charles William Eliot who had a connection with Louis Agassiz.
Pg 126: Evergreen's only $5,127. Cheap but what about family in Olympia? A third cousin?
Pg 234: Evergreen College, "Wow, this is different" no grades and PC. If this is on his top ten how can I take other things he says?
Pg 36: The GI Bill of 1944 doubled the number of people getting derees.
Pg 224: He seems to think peace comes by hearing all views and compromise. Peace will come only when everyone does what is right.
Pg 77: Oregon State University is protrayed as distant from students and research and publish. My question to Shanti, Did you know your Prof.?
Pg 187 Pell grants go to families that make less than $45,000 per year. Tom had pell grants.
Pg 270: UW not in index but WSU is.
Front Cover: Some Colleges need to adjust but some colleges are teaching at a more reasonable price.
Pg 4: Education or training? I say direction first, training 2nd and then education, as life lone activity.
Pg 5: Who froff read this page shoun't say "Why aren't students enrolling?"
Pg 9: Education in his option is to make interesting people challenge minds, expand understanding of the world. I say what good is it without discipline and a means to improve and provide. And interesting to whom? Others of the same caste?
He uses the word careers as a bad thing and adds that individual use position for their own interests and enjoyment.
Pg 54: This chapter must have written by Dreifus as it raises feeling for women "trapped" as adjuncts.
Pg 55: We have had, professor, associate, assistant, adjuncts but she say kindergarten teacher get more instruction on teaching.
Pg 81: What's this about Darwin?
Pg 102: The department of Labor lists 1,400 different occupation. New one are being created. Many don't yet have names. That's the area Dale Stephen says is fertile for uncollege.
Pg 128: Finally he tells how to get through cheap. Two year Junior College and then 2 years Senior College for $11,736. Walk or bike, carry lunch, live at home.
Pg 189: he suggests to do away with the admissions office and have a drawing of names out of a bowl.
Pg 203: A quote "we agree that becoming an educated person requires developing a store of facts. But it hardly needs saying that facts are not sufficient by the themselves, whether about art or artist or anything else."
Pg 204: This Florida Gulf Coast that he thinks, so much about is the one that did so well in Basketball in 2013.
Pg 243: After several good ideas on reform of education they suggest sending donations to a poorer college.
Pg 165: Title ix in 1982 brought women into sports but women's gymnastics is down. Soccer and softball are big, how about track?
Pg 72: Jeff Bezos is a graduate of Princeton and I saw him in the Georgetown Warehouse working the 2nd or 3rd Christmas season.
Pg 206: Geo. W Bush will be remembered for "no child left behind."
Pg 2: John Dewey's notion for education was preparation for democratic citizenship. Better yet heavenly citizenship.
Pg 45: The system has become a massive quiz show with the prize going to the man with his hand up first, says Harold Taylor follower of John Dewey.
Pg 44: WEB Dubois was sponsored by Charles William Eliot who had a connection with Louis Agassiz.
Pg 126: Evergreen's only $5,127. Cheap but what about family in Olympia? A third cousin?
Pg 234: Evergreen College, "Wow, this is different" no grades and PC. If this is on his top ten how can I take other things he says?
Pg 36: The GI Bill of 1944 doubled the number of people getting derees.
Pg 224: He seems to think peace comes by hearing all views and compromise. Peace will come only when everyone does what is right.
Pg 77: Oregon State University is protrayed as distant from students and research and publish. My question to Shanti, Did you know your Prof.?
Pg 187 Pell grants go to families that make less than $45,000 per year. Tom had pell grants.
Pg 270: UW not in index but WSU is.
Front Cover: Some Colleges need to adjust but some colleges are teaching at a more reasonable price.
Pg 4: Education or training? I say direction first, training 2nd and then education, as life lone activity.
Pg 5: Who froff read this page shoun't say "Why aren't students enrolling?"
Pg 9: Education in his option is to make interesting people challenge minds, expand understanding of the world. I say what good is it without discipline and a means to improve and provide. And interesting to whom? Others of the same caste?
He uses the word careers as a bad thing and adds that individual use position for their own interests and enjoyment.
Pg 54: This chapter must have written by Dreifus as it raises feeling for women "trapped" as adjuncts.
Pg 55: We have had, professor, associate, assistant, adjuncts but she say kindergarten teacher get more instruction on teaching.
Pg 81: What's this about Darwin?
Pg 102: The department of Labor lists 1,400 different occupation. New one are being created. Many don't yet have names. That's the area Dale Stephen says is fertile for uncollege.
Pg 128: Finally he tells how to get through cheap. Two year Junior College and then 2 years Senior College for $11,736. Walk or bike, carry lunch, live at home.
Pg 189: he suggests to do away with the admissions office and have a drawing of names out of a bowl.
Pg 203: A quote "we agree that becoming an educated person requires developing a store of facts. But it hardly needs saying that facts are not sufficient by the themselves, whether about art or artist or anything else."
Pg 204: This Florida Gulf Coast that he thinks, so much about is the one that did so well in Basketball in 2013.
Pg 243: After several good ideas on reform of education they suggest sending donations to a poorer college.
May 1, 2011
Andrew Hacker's book on Higher Education should be required reading for anyone planning to go to college (or paying for anyone else to go to college). The statistics in this book are incredible. From the amount that professors are paid to the amount that varsity athletics ends up costing the university, the statistics are sobering and incredible. Hacker does a great job deconstructing the system, and showing where the money is going. It basically comes down to: research is terrible expensive both in time and money (meaning education for undergrads takes a back seat) and tenure is a ridiculous and useless burden whose costs lie squarely on the students' shoulders. Hacker also does a great job of revealing the sad exploitation of grad students and adjunct professors, who often teach the same class with better reviews for 1/6 of the pay of a full member of the staff. On an unrelated note, I love Hacker's take on the Business degree for undergrads just out of high school. :) His discussion of affirmative action, public versus private education, and the best values in education are also insightful and valuable.
On the negative side, Hacker and co. are still upholding Robert Maynard Hutchin's view of education, which I think is total crap. Hutchins, who admittedly has a plethora of philosophers on his side, basically says that anything which is useful or practical is not education. So, biology is education. Medicine is not. Physics is education. Engineering is not. I'm content to just call that theory a deeply stupid false dichotomy. If you disagree, write something in the comments, and we can have the discussion.
This perspective on education, and the desirability of a liberal arts education instead of a practical education, has put a definite slant on his writing. To me, it was very funny when he made the comment that he had never met anyone who had majored in art, history, or philosophy who regretted their decision, while he had met many accountants, engineers, etc. who wished they had studied history or art or philosophy. Obviously, Monsieur Hacker has never visited the unemployment line. :) Where I'm from, the liberal arts degrees qualify you to say "And what would you like on your burger, ma'am?"
Not that I think there is anything wrong with studying those subjects!
I think philosophy, history, literature, and the arts should be a part of everyone's education, it's part of what makes us deeper humans. But majoring in those things tends to be the realm of the bourgeois. As is his advice to go to school without working, get a liberal arts education, spend a year or two working a low-paying job to find out what you want to do, then go back to school to get "training" in your chosen field. That might not be a bad system, but who can afford to do that?
To me, we should start including these liberal arts subjects in the compulsory education system (K-12) and stop requiring it in the university. That way everyone is exposed to these ideas but no one is required to take classes they do not find necessary or useful. Just my take.
On the negative side, Hacker and co. are still upholding Robert Maynard Hutchin's view of education, which I think is total crap. Hutchins, who admittedly has a plethora of philosophers on his side, basically says that anything which is useful or practical is not education. So, biology is education. Medicine is not. Physics is education. Engineering is not. I'm content to just call that theory a deeply stupid false dichotomy. If you disagree, write something in the comments, and we can have the discussion.
This perspective on education, and the desirability of a liberal arts education instead of a practical education, has put a definite slant on his writing. To me, it was very funny when he made the comment that he had never met anyone who had majored in art, history, or philosophy who regretted their decision, while he had met many accountants, engineers, etc. who wished they had studied history or art or philosophy. Obviously, Monsieur Hacker has never visited the unemployment line. :) Where I'm from, the liberal arts degrees qualify you to say "And what would you like on your burger, ma'am?"
Not that I think there is anything wrong with studying those subjects!
I think philosophy, history, literature, and the arts should be a part of everyone's education, it's part of what makes us deeper humans. But majoring in those things tends to be the realm of the bourgeois. As is his advice to go to school without working, get a liberal arts education, spend a year or two working a low-paying job to find out what you want to do, then go back to school to get "training" in your chosen field. That might not be a bad system, but who can afford to do that?
To me, we should start including these liberal arts subjects in the compulsory education system (K-12) and stop requiring it in the university. That way everyone is exposed to these ideas but no one is required to take classes they do not find necessary or useful. Just my take.
November 2, 2014
I enjoyed this book quite a bit, found it to be fair and steady in its examination of reality of higher education, an issue near and dear to my heart. The afterword is a bit more passionate with a little heat released. The authors are two folks who care deeply about students and about real learning and the growth and development of young minds. It's rare to hear academic admit and expose the myths and frauds that infest higher education, you can tell it bothers the authors, they are affected and express disappointment. I found this book very useful, I would have liked a little more fang and venom exposed towards those who have betrayed the students, their parents and the public, Excellent Sheep by William Deresiewicz is a prime example. For those who have never worked in higher education, it's very hard for them to understand the ugly reality and skewed priorities that drive the system. This book does a good job of exposing the self-serving and protective myths that are taken for granted by a trusting public. It has almost nothing to do with real learning or growth, it's a massive fraud perpetuated on the public. Here's a selection for you to enjoy.(pp. 77-78)
“We don’t feel the professors are here for us,” we were told by a Harvard junior. “When we come to Harvard, we have to understand it’s not for the education we get, but for the reputation its degree gives us.” Nathan Shipman’s at Oregon State was more blatant. “You don’t have teachers here,” he said, “I’ve had professors on the first day say, ‘I’m here to research; I’m forced to teach; so you’re not going to have a good term.” At both schools, it became clear to us that large segments of the faculty don’t care about undergraduates, nor do they feel they have to.”
A senior also noted that “even in the smallest of classes, the seminars I’ve taken, like tutorials, there would be ten or twenty kids, often the professors don’t even grade papers.
Did the professors feel too lofty to read what their students had written? Or were professors at both Oregon and Harvard full of a quiet contempt for the undergraduates they are ostensibly paid to teach?”
I can answer this question from over a decade of direct experience and observation, YES, most faculty and university officials are full of contempt towards undergraduate students. They don't like you, care about you or have barely any regard for your future and they're laughing all the way to the bank as they fleece us. Time for the gravy train to come to a screeching halt for these predators and parasites!
“We don’t feel the professors are here for us,” we were told by a Harvard junior. “When we come to Harvard, we have to understand it’s not for the education we get, but for the reputation its degree gives us.” Nathan Shipman’s at Oregon State was more blatant. “You don’t have teachers here,” he said, “I’ve had professors on the first day say, ‘I’m here to research; I’m forced to teach; so you’re not going to have a good term.” At both schools, it became clear to us that large segments of the faculty don’t care about undergraduates, nor do they feel they have to.”
A senior also noted that “even in the smallest of classes, the seminars I’ve taken, like tutorials, there would be ten or twenty kids, often the professors don’t even grade papers.
Did the professors feel too lofty to read what their students had written? Or were professors at both Oregon and Harvard full of a quiet contempt for the undergraduates they are ostensibly paid to teach?”
I can answer this question from over a decade of direct experience and observation, YES, most faculty and university officials are full of contempt towards undergraduate students. They don't like you, care about you or have barely any regard for your future and they're laughing all the way to the bank as they fleece us. Time for the gravy train to come to a screeching halt for these predators and parasites!
September 26, 2011
This book is chock-full of facts about university president salaries, the money made (or not made) from college athletics, how admissions really works and so on. The authors analyze the business of college education and return on investment, which can't really be done in a short book like this but do keep you entertained. They list their Top 10 Favorite Colleges (and why, after researching for this book for several years) and the last chapter is their recommendations for how Higher Education could be better. Having worked in both the for-profit sector and higher education, I agree with some points here about the pace and culture and opportunities for making the undergraduate experience better; however, the authors don't acknowledge many positive changes that are already being made or present a realistic action plan. I would love to see this made into a movie so it could reach a huge audience of Americans, with the higher education officials able to present their side of the story since in many ways universities are run like a very tight ship, scrutinized more heavily than for-profit businesses. While the U.S. stock and real estate markets can collapse, universities operate conservatively since the principal in their endowments is not spent. Any parent or student about to choose a college and commit to student loans will likely find this book a good read. I also think this is a great book for boards of trustees and other university donors who can seize their opportunity to make a difference when they choose the projects to be funded or become priorities. For instance, the authors feel that adjunct instructors should make the same amount of money per class taught as full-time professors. Should a donor feel strongly about this, he or she could choose to direct a gift to such a purpose instead of a new facility or scholarships. The private sector has an ability and responsibility to keep universities focused on their missions. Overall this book gets you thinking - but there are two sides of the story.
August 31, 2016
So there are great points in this book, but there are also some problems:
The authors rely on student evaluations for some of their judgements of faculty. It should be a given that a population of students who do not live up to the higher expectations of a good teacher may not treat that faculty member well. It should also be noted that in most situations students rate faculty on these evaluations before their final grades are tallied; therefore, a student who did fairly good bit thinks they did poorly may take out their self disappointment on the faculty member. For these reasons, a student portfolio is a better way to judge a teacher's success.
The book is overly judgmental and makes various hasty generalizations such as a top ten list of colleges. Did they visit every college in the nation?
A call for fewer sabbaticals may be a call for more teaching and less research, but what about creative endeavors that refresh a faculty member?
Some of the highlights of this book:
The call for less research and more focus on teaching is appreciated.
Committees can be busy work and can take away from teaching.
End exploitation of adjuncts! These faculty members often have the same exact academic credentials as full-timers but get 1/6 the pay. Obviously this is a catch 22 because if you hire more full-timers and have less adjuncts you're either going to have full-timers who get paid significantly less or you're going to have major budget problems. Adjunct pay and benefits could be improved or these positions could be limited to those who already have full-time positions elsewhere.
Another plus is the book's call for administrators to be public servants.
The authors rely on student evaluations for some of their judgements of faculty. It should be a given that a population of students who do not live up to the higher expectations of a good teacher may not treat that faculty member well. It should also be noted that in most situations students rate faculty on these evaluations before their final grades are tallied; therefore, a student who did fairly good bit thinks they did poorly may take out their self disappointment on the faculty member. For these reasons, a student portfolio is a better way to judge a teacher's success.
The book is overly judgmental and makes various hasty generalizations such as a top ten list of colleges. Did they visit every college in the nation?
A call for fewer sabbaticals may be a call for more teaching and less research, but what about creative endeavors that refresh a faculty member?
Some of the highlights of this book:
The call for less research and more focus on teaching is appreciated.
Committees can be busy work and can take away from teaching.
End exploitation of adjuncts! These faculty members often have the same exact academic credentials as full-timers but get 1/6 the pay. Obviously this is a catch 22 because if you hire more full-timers and have less adjuncts you're either going to have full-timers who get paid significantly less or you're going to have major budget problems. Adjunct pay and benefits could be improved or these positions could be limited to those who already have full-time positions elsewhere.
Another plus is the book's call for administrators to be public servants.
July 12, 2013
Working in Higher Education, I have a unique perspective on the issues presented in this book. On many points, they present valid concerns. As in any industry there are those who take advantage of the system and those that work tireless for their chosen profession. Categorizing all faculty into the former grouping is unfair. The condescending tone of their arguments and the lack of statistical data make their arguments hard to back up, making them seem angry and petulant.
The authors of this book also make wide generalizations regarding the functioning of universities. I've found {from my own baseless observations - LOL} that most faculty (as the author is) rarely understand the actual administrative processes or the reasons behind them. So to make accusations about the appropriateness of spending is a spurious assumption, riddled with holes.
Hacker bases much of their observations on Ivy League institutions. As many aspire to emulate these universities and colleges, the reality is that the actual number of students attending those institutions are minuscule compared to the greater college going population. How does this relate to the actual problems facing higher education? This book also ignores one of the fundamental issues with higher education today. The students and the parents.
If someone is looking for an accurate and representation of higher education and the problems plaguing us, this is not the book.
The authors of this book also make wide generalizations regarding the functioning of universities. I've found {from my own baseless observations - LOL} that most faculty (as the author is) rarely understand the actual administrative processes or the reasons behind them. So to make accusations about the appropriateness of spending is a spurious assumption, riddled with holes.
Hacker bases much of their observations on Ivy League institutions. As many aspire to emulate these universities and colleges, the reality is that the actual number of students attending those institutions are minuscule compared to the greater college going population. How does this relate to the actual problems facing higher education? This book also ignores one of the fundamental issues with higher education today. The students and the parents.
If someone is looking for an accurate and representation of higher education and the problems plaguing us, this is not the book.
July 22, 2014
Hacker was an educator at the college level for many years, and this book shows his expertise. However, Hacker also falls prey to the route that many educators take: finding blame with the system (which as he points out is broken) rather than with the students that come to these colleges. Higher Education's primary argument is that schools are pressed more and more to find money for non-educational endeavors; sports and entertainment venues in particular.
This argument is correct, and the book provides ample evidence and examples to back up the claim. However, the book makes a straw man argument to an extent, leaving out the fact schools (faculty included) often make decisions that are positive for the students personal desires but are negative with regard to the student's actual education.
Students (and parents) want big football teams and large entertainment venues for prestige and they get it. Hacker's argument seems to be primarily with the school administration and the emphasis put upon the importance of sports, all of which are warranted. However, to say that colleges are "wasting our money" is not correct. It is the students and parents that are wasting their own money, and the book does not point this particular fact out.
I think the book gives good insight into the state of modern higher education, but only gives part of the story.
This argument is correct, and the book provides ample evidence and examples to back up the claim. However, the book makes a straw man argument to an extent, leaving out the fact schools (faculty included) often make decisions that are positive for the students personal desires but are negative with regard to the student's actual education.
Students (and parents) want big football teams and large entertainment venues for prestige and they get it. Hacker's argument seems to be primarily with the school administration and the emphasis put upon the importance of sports, all of which are warranted. However, to say that colleges are "wasting our money" is not correct. It is the students and parents that are wasting their own money, and the book does not point this particular fact out.
I think the book gives good insight into the state of modern higher education, but only gives part of the story.
January 30, 2019
I'm a big fan of Claudia Dreifus--she is a wonderful and insightful writer. And I'm glad to have read this book, which is a well-researched and sobering examination of the state of higher education in the U.S. today. Dreifus and her co-author Andrew Hacker have asked whether the cost to attend college has exceeded its value, not only in terms of economic payback, but also in terms of teaching a given student anything at all.
Their research into the ways that Academia has protected its own interests, at a terrible cost to students, reminded me starkly of the health care crisis, another system that has run amuck and has become prohibitively expensive for almost all of us. This book drives home the ways that any self-policing, self-governing group of "experts," however much it wants to make good choices, will end up making self-serving choices instead.
I'm a little dismayed at the level of polemics--it seems that no one anywhere is getting a good education--but I really feel the basic arguments are sound and the book is well worth your time to read, especially if you are about to apply to college, or to send your child to one.
Their research into the ways that Academia has protected its own interests, at a terrible cost to students, reminded me starkly of the health care crisis, another system that has run amuck and has become prohibitively expensive for almost all of us. This book drives home the ways that any self-policing, self-governing group of "experts," however much it wants to make good choices, will end up making self-serving choices instead.
I'm a little dismayed at the level of polemics--it seems that no one anywhere is getting a good education--but I really feel the basic arguments are sound and the book is well worth your time to read, especially if you are about to apply to college, or to send your child to one.
September 11, 2010
I enjoyed this book, and found a lot of the facts presented within to be compelling and of great interest. I come to the subject of higher ed with a bias toward the reform that the authors advocate, so I was well-disposed to agree with much of the subject matter.
This is a sobering read in light of the economic downturn, which does not appear to have had a significant effect on universities and colleges, at least as far as enrollment is concerned. One is left to wonder what will happen to all these kids with their fairly worthless degrees and mortgage-sized debt, in some cases. ("Worthless" in that the quality of education is poor, and the degree itself unattractive to employers.)
Finally, I found the facts in the book regarding the percentage of students whose parents pay the full cost of Ivy education extremely revealing as to how these institutions *actually* compose their student bodies versus how they claim to compose their student bodies.
This is a sobering read in light of the economic downturn, which does not appear to have had a significant effect on universities and colleges, at least as far as enrollment is concerned. One is left to wonder what will happen to all these kids with their fairly worthless degrees and mortgage-sized debt, in some cases. ("Worthless" in that the quality of education is poor, and the degree itself unattractive to employers.)
Finally, I found the facts in the book regarding the percentage of students whose parents pay the full cost of Ivy education extremely revealing as to how these institutions *actually* compose their student bodies versus how they claim to compose their student bodies.
November 27, 2014
I wish I could give this book negative stars. I will be the first to admit that higher education has problems that need to be addressed; however, I could not have disagreed with a book more. This book is little more than biased ranting by the authors. I had a difficult time continuing after they called a Bachelor's degree in engineering a worthless vocational training that had no right to call itself either higher or education. Then they describe their Utopian university as one where 18 to 22 year old students find themselves and increase their cultural awareness but receive no specialized job training whatsoever. I can't believe people are going to line up and agree to pay thousands of dollars for that.
This book was ridiculous. I found myself reading sections out loud to other people because I could not fathom what was written and that someone actually believed it to be truth.
This book was ridiculous. I found myself reading sections out loud to other people because I could not fathom what was written and that someone actually believed it to be truth.
May 27, 2016
I enjoyed this book a lot more than I thought I would. I relished how much the authors went for the jugular. They were not at all afraid to question the basic structure of the higher education system and to put some sensitive sacred cows in the cross hairs. A thought that I kept on having was that no politician could write this because he/she would offend too many stakeholders and make too many enemies. Hacker and Driefus have no qualms about stirring the pot and looking at things with a ruthlessly critical eye.
Maybe what I admire most about this book was its philosophical critique. The authors were not afraid to question the fundamental purposes and functions of college and project their vision of college and what it should be. They effectively question many implicit assumptions that I had never thought to question. This book gave me a very valuable perspective on higher education and has changed how I frame and see it.
Maybe what I admire most about this book was its philosophical critique. The authors were not afraid to question the fundamental purposes and functions of college and project their vision of college and what it should be. They effectively question many implicit assumptions that I had never thought to question. This book gave me a very valuable perspective on higher education and has changed how I frame and see it.
November 1, 2010
This book challenges almost every assumption in college education, from the cost, to the emphasis on research, to tenure, to the country club atmosphere on many colleges, to college athletics, to the vast expansion in course and majors, to the vocational aspects of many college programs. The challenges are thought provoking. The statistics underlying many of the challenges seem flawed at best. The authors point out that there are not good statistics for many of their hypothesis, so they try to ferret some out from existing information. While I think that many of their suggestions are worthwhile, none of the support is.
It is a worthwhile read for their point of view, and the areas they find the subject of challenge. But they fall far short of proving their points. It may be enough that they raise them.
It is a worthwhile read for their point of view, and the areas they find the subject of challenge. But they fall far short of proving their points. It may be enough that they raise them.
October 21, 2015
This book was a unrelenting critique on the United States' broken higher education system. I found it to be very insightful and interesting. The problems that face higher education are far more vast than I had thought before reading this book. I really enjoyed this book though I did find that some of their views were a little narrow. For example, Hacker and Dreifus define higher education as only a liberal arts education. Any vocational training is not to be considered part of higher education in the minds of the authors. I found that idea to be very limiting and unfortunately narrow. Despite that, the book was enjoyable. It tested my devotion and loyalty to a system that is so riddled with flaws, it's a miracle that it hasn't caved in on itself. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in higher education.
April 8, 2015
I found this book through the Colbert Report. I found it especially appropriate for high schoolers who wanted to go to college but anyone who votes should know about education policy and policy history. A few bullet points the book drives home:
-Sports in college is a waste of talent, intellect, money, and energy. Switch to walk-ons beginning in the sophomore year and run the sports program to serve and enrich the students rather than exploiting the students.
-Professors get paid too much while adjuncts get taken advantage of. The system of money compensation and tenure is injuring the quality of actual education and the amount of positions open to new PhDs.
America wants to do better but those in power are those with money and those with money want to make more.
I guess the bottom line is: vote & care.
-Sports in college is a waste of talent, intellect, money, and energy. Switch to walk-ons beginning in the sophomore year and run the sports program to serve and enrich the students rather than exploiting the students.
-Professors get paid too much while adjuncts get taken advantage of. The system of money compensation and tenure is injuring the quality of actual education and the amount of positions open to new PhDs.
America wants to do better but those in power are those with money and those with money want to make more.
I guess the bottom line is: vote & care.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews