First: props to any author who successfully finishes a book and gets it into readers' hands. It is no doubt a massive effort to bring to life a set of organized, original ideas. That out there, I have to admit that I was underwhelmed with this book, especially given its potential.
As part of my reading this year related to work on the future of learning, I've been engaging with content seeking to expand the art of the possible in the education, learning, and work spaces. I recently finished Sal Khan's One World Schoolhouse and Ted Dintersmith's What School Could Be. Both books shared deep personal viewpoints through the lens of a journey, in Khan's case through his own education and the founding of the eponymous academy, and in Dintersmith's case through the country's classrooms and public meeting spaces. Both of those books brought cogent arguments for what the future might look like, and what people can do to get there. Stephens' work, honestly, left something to be desired.
Part of it is a style dissonance between author and reader. Stephens' casual tone and frequent, unnecessary cursing, made the book feel unserious, when dealing with what he acknowledges is one of our country's and time's biggest issues (education). But my much more substantial issue with the book is its cherry-picked examples and unreasonable recommendations. Stephens himself seems a wunderkind: clearly very smart, incredibly social, widely read, and hyper-organized, he quit grade school and has gone on to pull together an impressive set of non-traditional credentials. Plus he's written at least one more book than most people (including yours truly).
Many of his examples feel more like ways he has managed to hack his education and less like ways others might reasonably do. Making dozens of introduction (10-15 per day!), hosting weekly dinners (and never eating dinner without a group), constantly looking for who matters (about networking: "It's figuring out who you should spend time with getting to know today because they'll be leading the world tomorrow"): all these seem like potentially useful things to do. But who does these things?
I also take philosophical / ethical issue with some of his prescribed methods. Attending big lectures at universities? Probably little harm. Actively participating in those classes, as he suggests people do? Of dubious ethical foundation considering the investment other students have made for the teacher, resources, etc. Crashing conferences and sitting outside to meet people? Ok. Trying to take leftover badges from no-shows? Not cool. Guessing emails of important people? Good idea. Lying on your resume? (He doesn't explicitly condone this, but does tell a story of someone doing this, without any opprobrium.) Not something anyone should be even tacitly encouraging.
Stephens is openly advocating for free-riding. How many free-riders can the system handle before the value of that being free-ridden isn't worth riding? Stephens could just as easily advocate for a system that encourages people to share scarce resources (in particular professor time and community building activities) vs. one that encourages people to free-ride or steal as much as possible. He could make an impassioned argument for university systems like those in his (and my) state of California to redouble their efforts to provide for career ready citizens, beyond traditional higher ed pathways. But maybe that's just my crotchety mid-30s-self speaking.
Ultimately, Stephens is clear that he is arguing for choice in building unique learning pathways and experiences, not about eliminating college. I agree vehemently on this dimension of increased diversity of pathway choice. Students should think carefully about the cost-benefit trade-off for any investment in their development, formal or informal, at a school or not, close to home or far, etc. Stephens is correct that there is a kind of bubble in higher education, with costs having spiraled for decades without corresponding value accretion. (Although the bursting has not happened in the five years since the book was published, it's hard to imagine the education market not continuing its rapid pace of change.) Schools themselves should transform themselves. They should look carefully at where their dollars go, and eliminate unnecessary spending. That expensive new gym? Why? All those administrators? Really adding value to the students and thus society?
At the end of the day, Stephens is an example of what education will continue to look like for more and more kids in our country and the world. While I disagree with some of his methods, I am glad that he has taken such a strong stance for reform of a higher ed system in need of it.
One disclosure: while I've never met Stephens, I do know members of the leadership team of Year On, which is uncollege.org's successor organization. I've socialized with them and also discussed their business model with one of them. (It's a model which I think is incredibly important as part of the ecosystem of new ideas that need to slosh around in the well of higher ed...)