Fail U.: The False Promise of Higher Education

by Charles J. Sykes

The cost of a college degree has increased by 1,125% since 1978―four times the rate of inflation. Total student debt has surpassed $1.3 trillion. Nearly two thirds of all college students must borrow to study, and the average student graduates with more than $30,000 in debt. Many college graduates under twenty-five years old are unemployed or underemployed. And professors―remember them?―rarely teach undergraduates at many major universities, instead handing off their lecture halls to cheaper teaching assistants.

So, is it worth it? That’s the question Charles J. Sykes attempts to answer in Fail U., exploring the staggering costs of a college education, the sharp decline in tenured faculty and teaching loads, the explosion of administrative jobs, the grandiose building plans, and the utter lack of preparedness for the real world that many now graduates face. Fail U. offers a different vision of higher education; one that is affordable, more productive, and better-suited to meet the needs of a diverse range of students―and one that will actually be useful in their future careers and lives.

Genres: Nonfiction, Education, Politics, Cultural, Sociology, American History, Political Science

288 pages, Hardcover

First published August 2, 2016

Reviews

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A devastating indictment of the current travesty called higher education. A very worthwhile read, especially for those parents preparing to shell out megabucks for a bunch of nothing.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

I received this book through the Goodreads Giveaways program. A very thought provoking book on the ills and wrongs of the American higher education system. As a part of the system, I found agreement and understanding of several of author's points. I would argue for a broader understanding of learning, one which transcends the academic classroom, and includes the many co-curricular pursuits the author seems to negate as non-essential to academic mission and purpose.

Regardless of one's position on higher education, I think that everyone will walk away with a different perspective of higher education.

[Devin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed college when I attended in the 1990s. Back then, we challenged the profs and tuition was reasonable. Since many high school students obtained good paying jobs in the manufacturing sector, 18-year-olds did not need to attend college to access meaningful employment.

Things have obviously changed. I have two children in college and, quite frankly, when they come home on the weekends, I feel as if they are being brainwashed by liberal professors, who feel no need to even pretend to be objective researchers. Unlike my generation, today's group of kids are more concerned with the number of likes they get on Facebook, Twitter, etc. than challenging profs that carry water for one major political party. Go figure.

Maybe this is why Charles J. Sykes' book "Failed U" resonated with me. Sykes has a radio show in Milwaukee, was a former reporter for the Milwaukee Journal, and his research is very good. His ex-wife, Diane, is a judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In other words, you can disagree with him, want to slay the messenger, etc, but you must do your homework to challenge the work he presents in his book. He even encourages those who disagree with him to call in to his show and challenge him.

Sykes' narrative is that federal government guaranteed loans have given Failed U's a blank check to raise tuition 1,100 percent since 1978, more than three times the rate of inflation. Many of the degrees received (woman's studies, sociology, liberal studies) do nothing for graduated students.

Moreover, 96 percent of history professors are left of center and seek to revise and attack the US, instead of seeing the nation as a place made up of flawed people, who have done their best to address the country's shortcomings.

Good book. I would recommend it to parents whose children are approaching college. You might want to have your son or daughter consider a trade or learn, first hand, how to run a business

[Steve Peifer · Rating 1 out of 5]

There are two drinking games that could come out of this worthless book:

1. Please give oh another reference to your classic, most beloved former book ProfScam said no one ever, yet we are treated to SO many references to his former book that the first drinking game is to have to take a shot every time ProfScam is mentioned. If you are a mean drunk, give notice because you will be blotto by the third chapter.

2. This isn't a real book with real research. The second drinking game is to pick a topic in this book and google it. If the references in this book are in the same order as your Google search, it shows the amount of creative thought that went into this joke of a book. If you drink every time the references line up with your Google search, take a shot. Avoid if you already have liver damage.

The shame is that there are important issues worth raising but not by a family values DJ on his third marriage with this cut and paste lack of effort joke.

[Russ · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm biased since I've been advising against college for years. Most people don't need it and would be better off avoiding it. Most of this book will fall on deaf ears as the author tries to swim against a very strong tide. Like most things in America, it won't be fixed until a crisis and then it will probably be fixed badly. The author had plenty of evidence, statistics and studies to support his positions that college is overpriced, over prescribed where the inmates run the asylum.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

compiles many of the anti-modern-university greatest hits [tuition costs have gone up too much; federally subsidized loans insulate the consumer from the costs and facilitate tuition increases; star professors' teaching loads are too light; grade inflation is rampant; Antioch's code requiring affirmative consent for each escalating step of a sexual encounter can be easily mocked; MOOC's are going to put these sorry teachers out of business; college sports are a big waste of money; modern students are fragile snowflakes in [perceived] need of trigger warnings about microaggressions; most research is BS; tenure mainly protects slackers rather than outspoken dissidents].

Even my personal favorite, the "money is wasted on climbing walls" meme, is here. I wish my school had a climbing wall -- I could practice climbing it and relieve the stress and boredom from reading so many times about how tuition money is wasted on climbing walls.

oh well, my fault for reading another diatribe on this topic. If you are unfamiliar with issues listed above, then this would be an informative, if slanted, read. But to try to make it a safe space for you, two warnings:

1. you will see many references to, indeed extended quotes from, his much earlier [late 80s] book ProfScam. Stats are updated, and of course MOOC's weren't a thing then, but in many respects [there are too many administrators!] the arguments are interchangeable, which should give pause as to whether this book was necessary.

2. more generally, a wide range of topics is covered, but not necessarily in much depth. For examples:

(a) subsection on "the publication racket" [pp. 60-64] makes the inarguable point that lots of low-impact research gets published and then doesn't get read much, cited often [or at all], etc. However, he doesn't really take on the challenging question of whether there is some valid means of identifying in advance what research is going to turn out to be fairly useless and discouraging its production by redirecting the investigator's time toward more teaching. Instead, the argument is carried in part by just listing esoteric or trivial-sounding article titles without actually diving into what the articles in question are like. For instance,

"Don't tell me who to blame: Persuasive effects of implicit arguments in obesity messages on attributions of responsibility and policy support" (p. 61) is just listed as an example of pointless research, but how do we know that? I can't tell from the title that it was a waste or included no new and important insights. This is just lazy "come on, crazy stuff, amirite?" journalism of the weakest variety.

(b) chapter on "our bloated colleges" decries the costs of running programs with few, in some cases no, students (p. 103), but he doesn't really dig in critically to the assumption that there are big savings to be gained by cutting such nominal programs from the roster. I closed a certificate program with zero enrolled students last year just because I thought it was misleading for us to claim we had a real program in that area, and the occasional inquiries about it always convinced me that people misunderstood what it could offer, but I'm quite confident this action did not result in cost savings. Actually, the trouble it was to close it probably equaled the cost of running it for the past 12 years or so. In other words, if you really look into a program with zero students, there is very likely to be no dedicated staff, no faculty getting teaching credit, no ad budget to speak of, no office space used just for this program, etc. etc. The notion that lopping a few such programs out of the catalogue is going to free up a lot of resources for more productive use is fanciful.

anyway, don't mean to be too defensive. There is plenty wrong, irrational, or inefficient in higher ed, but I think you can find better sources for in-depth analysis than this one.

[Miescha · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wish I could give this 2 1/2 stars because that's exactly how I feel about it, 50%. It's not wrong but it only represents half of the full picture and unfortunately, like so much discourse in this country right now, is therefore part of the problem, not a solution. He points out real, serious problems in higher ed that need to be addressed but does it by abusing the reader with a barrage of statistics on cherry picked cases/issues while slinging insults at everyone. It's not scholarly research. He jumps all over the country through time and space recounting individual horror stories and neglects to give any instances where anyone anywhere is doing anything right. I get it, we're all complicit in any system but he is openly and unapologetically hostile throughout the book resorting to name-calling and snide remarks. "I told you so" is actually what he opens with. It's a shame because these discussions need to be had but after alienating everyone, who does he think will be willing to sit down at the table to discuss these issues? But as far as I can tell that's the point of this book. He doesn't want to engage real dialogue much less help come up with any tangible solutions. He believes he is above it all as evidenced in his closing that ascribes tasks and doomsday prophecies to each "guilty" party (from universities and legislators to parents and employers) but conveniently chooses to include himself in the "Rest of Us" category of victims whose only burden is to sit back and analyze what they're willing "to put up with". Seriously? Normally I wouldn't take the time to engage with something that is so obviously interested in only one-sided dialogue; however, I'm concerned that this one-sided list of grievances will actually harm those who it intends to enlighten and further damage the tenuous relationship that students and teachers alike are trying to foster under less than ideal circumstances by reducing people to members of societal groups that exist merely to demand things of one another.

[Ian Vance · Rating 2 out of 5]

Legitimate criticisms encompassing a growing structural issue, marred by typical conservative hyperbole + generalized brushstroking.

[Vance Ginn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book by Charles Sykes on the problems with higher education and a few possible solutions.

The ticking time bond of the student loan debt bubble orchestrated by government manipulation of increasing demand (e.g., grants and artificially low interest rates on student loans, etc.) and limiting supply (e.g., restrictions on new universities and lack of change to online options, etc.) contribute to extraordinary increases in college tuition and large potential economic effects.

This process in a government run market has led to a watering down of many lessons in the classroom, more of a focus on extracurricular activities to incentivize students to attend, and a reduction in the signal a degree provides.

The author also provides a thorough understanding of the mind-boggling situation of limiting free speech at universities as trigger warnings and micro-aggressions have become the new buzz words to limit speech someone disagrees with. As too many students grow up in this snowflake atmosphere, they are not prepared for the future, contributing to more of them staying at home for a longer period after graduation and less time at a job to increase their lifetime earnings.

Solutions range from ending the antiquated tenure system in higher education to moving more to online education services, to removing the distortionary effects of the market by substantially reducing the government's role.

I give this book 5 stars and highly recommend this book.

[Allison · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read with some breadth on the topic of education and from the title alone I braced myself for a very critical look at higher education. All of the points raised by Sykes (such as bloated administrations and grade inflation) *should* be raised, but what troubles me is that someone might read this book and think it is fair and accurate or scholarly when it is not. For example, it is important to question the assumption that everyone should go to college, but to do so fairly one would use a longer lens that includes a study of the GI Bill and how higher education has historically been the surest path to upward mobility in our society. Similarly, it is important to question best practices for handling campus sexual assault, but to do that one would surely reference Krakauer's "Missoula" or a similar resource that explains some of the difficulties campuses face when dealing with the issue. Instead, this book is a very one-sided rant.

[Mama K · Rating 5 out of 5]

clearly lays out the corrupt condition of our higher education system. But, of course, the universities have no reason to heed the advice to reform, students have no desire to heed reform because the government keeps throwing more money at them. Furthermore, The Snowflake Generation will not listen as they are being seduced by the promise Progressives feed them with "free" education......which they will pay for eventually down the road. Alas, I have no confidence that the universities, the government, nor the Snowflakes will loose their hold on their own personal Neverland until it's too late and we see a bubble burst just like the mortgage industry of 2008.

[Melinda · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been reading several educational reform books in the past months, and this one is a good one among many. Good because the suggestions for reform are more rational and reasonable. Whether they could be carried out in reform is another question.

We all know that college costs have skyrocketed, colleges have exploded their administrations to the point that there are often more administrators than real teaching professors, and we all know college students who graduate with degrees that don't match the real world at all. Knowing all that, what to do?

This book provides plenty of evidence of what we know, and also plenty of discussions of various problems across academia. The most interesting part to me was the last part on how to change what is broken. (These are sketchy but actual quotes FROM the book, fyi)

1) College for fewer -- not every student who graduates from high school needs to attend college. Separate the "college degree mystique" from the work that can be done. I am reminded of Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" and his ongoing desire to promote non-college jobs that are fulfilling and provide you with a good living.

2) Smaller -- instead of universities being all things to all people (and failing, as we have seen), trim the academic programs that have few students. Not everything requires a 4 year college degree. Make some degrees 3 year. Trim to focus on what is necessary. Eliminate that which sucks money and provides nothing in return.

3) Less -- Stop inflating the money bubble. Federal aid is a magnet that pulls faculty away from the classroom. Start treating student loans like loans rather than gifts on waiting. This might help students make prudent decisions and smarter borrowing choices.

4) Open, democratic, meritocratic, and global -- Rely less on SAT scores, GPA's, and focus more on those who are willing and able to do the work. Charge tuition based on completion of classes. Online courses, MOOC's remove class size limits and remove artificial barriers.

and 5) (my favorite) Restoring the American Mind -- Revitalize the liberal arts!!! -- liberal learning (the small "l" in liberal) is set against the stifling and oppressive atmosphere that dominates universities today. Let's start educating again in the true liberal sense instead of the indoctrination sense.

[Andrianna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Is there a chance this author wrote a book called ProfScam? I'm not sure, I think he might have mentioned it. Oh wait, he mentioned it dozens of times per chapter! Ii expected so much more from this book. All the interesting information could have filled about one chapter - the rest was endless griping and rehashing of the same exact arguments. Don't waste your time.

[D. Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written. It made me sad for current undergrads, scared for our country, and thankful for my time in college.

[Elina Salminen · Rating 3 out of 5]

(Still in the process of reading this, updating as I go.) Disclaimer: I have a long and complex history with higher education, having spent more than a decade in it and loving some parts of it while loathing others.

Higher ed is in crisis and we're all failing. Sykes is scathing in his verdict, in a way that feels satisfying although not very productive. He also has skin in the game: the entire first section of the book focuses on the reception of "ProfScam", a book he wrote in the 80s. In short, he doesn't like the reception it got and feels it was entirely because the Goliath machinery of thin-skinned academics squashed his David without giving him a fair hearing.

He does, in fairness, include evidence to back up his arguments, including depressing statistics about the building up of and default rates of student loans. Ditto for research output and publishing: in the 1990s (many of the studies Sykes uses are quite old - one wonders if things have changed in the meantime), 40% of faculty published little or nothing, and (according to a more recent studies), most articles are read by few to none readers. This is, unfortunately, accompanied by lists of shame where he mocks dissertation and publication topics; many of these topics seem to relate to gender studies and psychology. I say unfortunate because some of the topics he deems useless drivel include traumatic stress in mental health professionals and policy suggestions around obesity (and, one assumes, health) - hardly topics even a cynic sneering at anthropological studies of cultural perceptions of the body or histories of the US military (also on Sykes's list of shame) might actually see as being potentially useful.

He does cherry-pick his statistics. I did not follow up on most of his numbers, but the ones I did proved to be less than representative. Sykes argues that college students are learning nothing. Some of the statistics are fairly horrifying at a first glance, although Sykes weaves between stats on all millennials and those with university degrees, confusing the matter some. Even so, in 2015 half of millennials had not reached minimum levels of reading proficiency, and 64% did not attain minimum proficiency in math (according to Educational Testing Services, the corporation running GRE and other expensive standardized tests). In 2003, most college graduates were not proficient, according to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). These minimum criteria seem linked to things like ability to calculate the cost of something per pound and being able to figure out an editorial's argument, so we're not talking about lofty goals here.

Those are the numbers and facts cited by Sykes. Rifling through NAAL's website shows that scores actually slightly improved between 1992 and 2003, and "proficiency" is actually defined as "can perform complex and challenging literary activities" on NAAL's website. Finally, NAAL's results show that literacy scores do improve, quite significantly, with a college education (from an average score of 262 to 314). Comparisons to Finnish high-school graduates, who apparently are on level with US college graduates, are not really relevant because in Finland (as in many other countries), high school is selective. None of this negates the fact that US educational outcomes are, in places, worrisomely poor, but it makes one question Sykes's methods if not his overall argument. This is the only case where I had the curiosity to look up the actual sources, but it makes one wonder about the other numbers and arguments Sykes throws around.

One of the tricky questions Sykes addresses next is the idea of "college for all." Two thirds of Americans now go to college, but many never graduate, while those who do graduate often go on to do jobs that do not require a BA. I agree with Sykes's overall ideas: that the assumption that every needs or is capable of earning a BA is toxic, that it results in many people going into debt for no clear rewards, and all this resulting, ironically, in increased stigma for vulnerable groups as a push for "college for all!" results in a lack of a degree being seen as a terrible shortcoming. What I was left wondering about was the flipside. Why should people attend college? Those who manage to graduate do, at least according to universities' propaganda, earn much higher wages than those who don't. College has, at least for some, potential for an entry into the middle class, and this is something not addressed by Sykes.

The next section discusses bloat. The number of administrators and non-academic staff have ballooned, in some instances (Arizona State) doubling in less than two decades. Again, Sykes reserves special ire for positions aiming to advance diversity; the numbers regarding admin bloat seem damning, and one can ask if layering on endless administrators is the best way to advance diversity, but surely Sykes could have found worse examples of overspending.

And indeed he does. He lists massive infrastructure projects and athletic programs. Again, the numbers are staggering, and I for one did not realize that most of even very successful and high-profile college athletics programs were running deficits. Regarding infrastructure, Sykes insists that students themselves don't want fancy athletic complexes. This contradicts my admittedly anecdotal experience of development officers and admissions staff being frustrated that donor and student alike prefer to spend money on shiny facilities than fellowships, hiring new faculty, or other things that might support learning and teaching.

The next section focuses on hoaxes and scandals. Springer, while a credible publisher, isn't thought of very highly among many academics - and the reputation seems warranted, given how Sykes tells of how they published papers by "Ike Antkare," a fake academic producing "articles" that were in actuality computer-generated gibberish curated by Cyril Labbé, an actual scientist. Sykes notes how "Ike" was one of the most-cited authors for a while, but doesn't mention that this was mostly (or only?) because his articles cited his other work. Certainly something to make one question the value of certain algorithms measuring "impact," but hardly the same as the wider scientific community embracing the work; it's a flaw in measurement rather than a flaw in the readership.

On the educational front, the UNC Chapel Hill scandal, where hundreds of students were given high grades in exchange for handing in papers ranging from plagiarized to bad, is mentioned. Again, the stuff of nightmares, but one wonders about cherry-picking once more: Sykes mentions fake journals, but it's not clear how many of the gibberish articles were published in those versus journals that have at least some level of academic integrity. Springer, as mentioned, is an "actual" publisher, and they should feel embarrassed. Many of the other journals, it is implied, might be the type that send me cold emails addressing me as Professor (I'm not) and copy-pasting the titles of my articles onto a template, offering to kindly publish them for me (even though they've already been published) for a modest fee. It seems unfair to hold academia responsible for journals like that publishing garbage, as it would be like blaming Nigerian elites for email from "Nigerian princes."

The next section is called "Victim U." Sykes discusses examples of false accusations of rape and professors being interrogated for suggesting a student should capitalize "White" along with "Black." His examples seem well-researched, although of course extremely cherry-picked and wrapped in offensive rhetoric. He brings up the wildly different estimates in the prevalence of on-campus rape, ranging from 20% to 0.6%. Some digging up reveals a lot of discussion on the causes of this. One of the main drivers seems to be how sexual violence is defined and how questions are posed: surveys asking about "rape" result in much lower prevalence than surveys that describe unwanted touching, sex, and sex while incapacitated. In any case, I think Sykes has a general point about excesses and paranoia, but the anecdotal nature of the chapters doesn't really delve into more nuanced discussions about political correctness and sexual violence on campus.

And finally, the solutions: MOOCs, shorter degrees, and leaner universities. Given Sykes's criticism of conventional universities, his plentiful praise of MOOCs is a little surprising. I think many of his points are valid: there is much to be said about democratizing education, allowing people to study at their own pace, giving more people access to top instructors at elite universities. However, as someone who has taken a few MOOCs, his idea that MOOCs are more rigorous than sit-in classes strikes me as preposterous. Of course, the online infrastructure works better for certain things, such as programming courses where each participant is asked to submit their code (although what's to stop them from plagiarizing it), but peer-reviewed assignments are frequently flooded with lorem ipsut that gets a top grade with the understanding that others will return the favor. As for the idea for shorter, leaner degrees, I'm in support of Sykes. This would, of course, change the conventional college experience, but his point about not everyone needing four years of coursework is a valid one.

In short, Sykes makes many valid criticisms and has good suggestions, but they're often undermined by his provocateur prose and liberal use of statistics. I am curious about the idea he floats (not invented by him) of hybrid degrees allowing students to enter a university with a certain number of online credits.

[june3 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three stars for an easy read on a very important topic. But no more.

As with many things in our collective lives, college ain't what it used to be. I still cherish my college years. This was a time that I grew up and learned how to be my genuine self. I found a career and friends that have lasted a lifetime. I do not recall any multiple choice tests or easy-A classes.

College is now a commodity. It is HUGELY expensive and, rather than a life-changing developmental experience for those academically prepared for its rigors, a college education is frequently something purchased. In my long career in a STEM field, I worked with many young adults who had just graduated from college. Many had never held a job before (not even babysitting or camp counselor) and had a somewhat difficult time adjusting to the expectations of the working world. Indeed, I will always remember (fondly) receiving an email from someone's mother reminding me to celebrate her son's birthday. For real!!!

Starting from there, Mr. Sykes book. I was hoping for some insight - how did this happen? How do all these changes connect with one another?

No really good insights here. Lots of the usual right-of-center rants (lazy professors, stupid academic research, snowflake students, blah blah blah blah blah). I'm sorry, this didn't happen in a vacuum. Indeed, why would a senior professor choose to teach undergraduate classes given the chance that he or she might inadvertently say something perceived as offensive? I once inadvertently commented admiringly on someone's clothing - this young adult was dressed so stylishly all the time and he had great color sense - I corrected myself immediately but fortunately he just laughed and told me where to find the better outlet mall in our county. Whew!!!

And academic research - many of the most stunning scientific advances of our time (thinking, monoclonal antibodies, polymerase chain reaction) were introduced in academic publications with dense titles and abstracts.

And of course, the students. Given the costs of college, failure (no matter how minor) is not an option. I think they perceive themselves as victims because in some sense they are, regardless of real privilege. They do not have the chance to make ANY mistakes (real or perceived). I frequently found myself explaining again and again that the scientific process involved just that - delving in, learning from mistakes, getting back "on the horse" and trying again. This was a difficult lesson for many.

This book is full of rants, but no real answers. The section on MOOCs (think, Coursera) was particularly poor.

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sykes thinks that college is a joke that the Universities are playing/preying on the undergraduate students. Tuition is rising, administration staff is growing out of proportion to students and staff, political correctness and safe spaces are on the rise.

Why I started it: Eye catching title... but after 10 minutes I knew that it would be a battle to finish the book because of the author's immediate political stance and aggressive hyperbole.

Why I finished it: It is necessary and good to listen to someone on the other side of an issue with you, to learn their perspective and look for their solutions. Sykes solution is to do away with tenure and research at universities. He argues that some research is frivolous, so all research is frivolous. The Wright brothers were called that. Telecommunications are based on the frivolous branch of mathematics from the 1800s of wave mecahnics... the list is long. And if the Universities don't do the long term, "frivolous" research, who will? As I've recently read The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation less and less private companies are willing to invest in long term research.
Sykes argues that college sports suck more money out of the Universities than they contribute. And that they don't help and can actually harm the college athletes. I agree. He thinks that colleges shouldn't step into the investigations of rape victims and that too many are being falsely accused. I disagree, and the news shows that there are far more rapes/assaults being covered up than made up. #OhioState #MichiganStateUniversity #MeToo
MOOC - online courses are Sykes solution to the many problems. I'm not convinced. Many companies from Google to Pixar are having their employees come to the office so that they can bounce ideas off each other in hallways or the cafeteria. (Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration) Face it, people want to get into the prestigious universities not only for the classes, the professors, and bragging rights... but also for the networking.

Thought provoking ideas: 4 stars
Condescending tone: 2 stars
Research: 1 star - self referencing a book that you wrote years ago, doesn't count as research. Anecdotes without context, doesn't count as research either.

[Jerrid Kruse · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book is well written and appears to be well supported, but that support is suspect. While there are many things wrong with higher education, this author has simply highlighted already popularized accounts of instances of university failings. The anecdotal nature of the examples, combined with the complete lack of effort to provide any balance in the discussion result in a series of strawman arguments. While these straw men might point to more comprehensive issues, the lack of nuance means the recommendations fall flat for anyone familiar with the reality of universities today. I was particularly surprised that the author spent so much time lamenting the lack of faculty-student interaction and subsequently argued for MOOCs as a viable solution to the problems.

Any of the issues addressed that have merit (e.g., administrative bloat) are obvious to anyone inside higher ed, but the author believes he is saying something new. In the end, the author seems to have a bit of a messianic complex with respect to his ideas (which are not new) and the fate of higher ed.

[Jonathan Kadmon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most (but not all) criticisms are more or less on point, but the book is light on data and heavy on emotionally laden anecdotes. The author is conservative and in typical fashion muddies the waters with shrill anecdotes of extreme cases designed to generate outrage while spending insufficient time on data and specifics of management models and trends, and certainly not enough time supporting his arguments with evidence. The tragedy of it is that for many of his arguments there are reams of it out there. This book could have been so much better. Unfortunately it is not the book on the subject I was looking for.

[Christina Gagliano · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read most of this book because I got the picture right away--in fact, all you really needed to do was read the chapter titles to get the picture: higher education is grossly overpriced, not challenging enough, and producing a generation of whiners who are under-prepared for the workforce. Tell me something I didn't know, and provide better answers for what can realistically be done about it!

[Michael Burkhardt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it'd be difficult to find anyone who couldn't appreciate and even agree with a lot of what Mr. Sykes has to say about the current state of higher education. He makes several core arguments, provides good (if sometimes cherry-picked) statistics and anecdotes to support them, and ideas (not always practical ones) for how to change. At the end of the day, a worthy read.

[Frank Schwarz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting information. Explains what each of us knows...the cost of a college degree is unbearable. Also, the payoff in meaningful employment is shrinking.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Charles sheds light on the 🔦 the whole college industry. Academia will never be the same for you after this read. Maybe that's a stretch but at least you won't feel guilty for not donating to your college when they reach out to you each year as an alumni.

🗝️ Takeaways ⤵️

n recent decades has become not just a status symbol, but a perk
The higher one rose in academia the less they had to teach
no act of good teachinf goes unpunished
there is an emphasis on research
college professors actually get paid less for more time spent in the classroom
sinecure = a position requiring little or no work but giving the holder status or financial benefit
most professor's only work a 30 week year and can earn additional employment

professors spend less tben 5 hours a week on average actually teaching

lookup pags 9 or 8

66% of students borrow to fund their education
the average student graduates with $30,000 in loans
student loan debt now exceeds both the nation's total credit card and auto loan debt.
the delinquency rate on student loans is higher than the delinquency rate on credit cards, auto loans, and home mortgages.
non-aggression pact you don't ask much of me and I won't ask much of you
quantitative reasoning
overall, only one out of five community college students goes on to 4-year colleges
in·sid·i·ous
/inˈsidēəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects.
living in a free country does not mean that you are free from annoyance or immune to things that offend you
speech is only as free as the most hypersensitive activists will allow
Universities are very much in the business of trying to get you to rethink why you believe what you believe and whether you have grounds for believing it
people who attend college are implicitly agreeing to be pushed outside their intellectual and emotional comfort zones
dra·co·ni·an
/drəˈkōnēən/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

mi·lieu
/milˈyo͞o,milˈyə(r)/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person's social environment.
"he grew up in a military milieu
if history is any guide at all whenever a faster, cheaper way of sharing information emerges, it will sweep away what came before it

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a Catholic conservative and person who struggled mightily to finally obtain my bachelor's degree, I truly appreciate this insightful research into a university system that is obviously deteriorating and becoming a hotbed of censorship and progressive assault. Had I children, I would no longer encourage them to seek a college degree, or even service in the military. My best advice would be trade school and/or starting their own business. Nothing prepares a person better for reality than facing reality as soon as possible. College is now four or more years in a fantasy world that results in massive debt, brainwashing and a piece of worthless paper. For those of us who accomplished our degree mission of authentic study and education, that reward is incredibly satisfying. For many, including athletes who were floated through and now face reality without real wisdom or skill, it must be terrifying and despairing. I used university to provide what they promised. I escaped with more than I'd expected. This book of thoroughly researched data tells me my story isn't normal. And, the future for university isn't rosy.
Already, we see employers devaluing degrees. They're bypassing that candidate for those with ambition and distinct skills. Liberal arts has become way too liberal and counterproductive to an employers goals.
On top of recent graduates being sorely unprepared for basic employ, these grads are now so fragile and sanctimonious, employers are scared to death of their liability to such righteous snowflakes.
I hope universities eventually go bankrupt and change their ways, otherwise, they'll ensure their own irrelevance. On a positive note, this will advance the popularity and value of the trades, increase the nation's capabilities as competent "makers" and therefore reward the nation as a whole with greater achievement and success.
This book is a great read IF you respect factual insight to the modern (industrial) university system. Great read for parents of highschool kids.

[James Steele · Rating 1 out of 5]

Back in the late 1980s, Charles Sykes wrote an opinion piece called “ProfScam” in which he called out the bloated salaries of university professors in contrast with their low classroom responsibilities. He laid the declining standards of higher education and the rising cost of tuition at the feet of university professors sucking down huge salaries to pursue their useless pet research projects while leaving students neglected and taxpayers on the hook.

To the author’s surprise, the opinion piece was not well received. Who’d have thought stepping on the toes of university professors would not go over very well in academia?

Fail U. is the sequel to ProfScam nobody asked for, the author’s personal soapbox to gloat to a wider audience with the benefit of hindsight. He doubles down on laying the blame for the proliferation of worthless degrees, rising tuition, and the “snowflakes” on liberal-dominated campuses on professors who want to be paid lots of money to do as little as possible. Sure, there are a few other factors, he acknowledges, but he spends most of the book eviscerating professors for being lazy and entitled and passing these sensibilities on to what few students they have.

_____
According to Sykes, professors have abandoned their teaching posts in favor of personal research projects, forcing universities to replace tenured positions with adjuncts. After all, who else will teach the courses if the professors are on sabbatical, or doing research to chase federal grants and publish their academic papers in order to advance within the politics of academia?

I’ve read other material on the subject (The Debt Trap [Goodreads review], Unmaking the Public University [Goodreads review]). Professors are often required to publish a certain number of academic papers per year or they lose their tenure, AND they must pay for the publication of their papers out of their own pockets. This is not a case of academics wasting taxpayer and tuition money on pointless research so lazy professors can advance within academia without doing real work or contributing real knowledge to humanity. Professors are the ones under pressure to justify their positions lest they be replaced by lower-paid temp workers and exclusive youtube videos. They don’t like the changes that have been occurring to higher learning either.

Administrative positions have proliferated while universities decrease spending on actual teaching. Federal and state funds are tied to student loans, not grants, which go straight to administrative salaries. Researchers themselves express frustration that they spend so much time begging for grants to continue their research, so they are not living fat and happy doing pointless work—they struggle to keep funding.

Sports coaches are paid millions of dollars per year, and universities place emphasis on their sports teams because those rake in money. They waste millions of dollars on amenities for students and state-of-the-art sports facilities in order to hide the profits as expenses. At the same time, they slash spending on teaching while increasing tuition.

But sure, it’s all the fault of lazy professors and PC-culture.

Anything to avoid blaming profit motive and the hostile takeover of the university by the business world drawing in more and more students to line the pockets of administration and lenders, increasing profit margins by getting rid of tenured positions and replacing them with lower-paid adjuncts and interns, reducing the standards of education to enroll more and more students because that earns more money for lenders and administrators.

_____
Sykes doesn’t examine the system critically in any way. He blames professors for being lazy. This is the “Waiting for Superman” of the undergraduate sphere. The number of times he quotes ProfScam as proof of how he saw the trends in the 80s and now he’s been proven right made me roll my eyes. In fact, part one of Fail U. is named “I Told You So.”

I endured the book because I wanted to read a right-leaning perspective on PC (Political Correctness) culture. I share some of his frustrations with it (link to blog), and while I do agree with some of his sentiments about how things like trigger warnings have gone a bit too far, I cannot abide his assertion that universities MUST allow people like Anne Coulter or Condoleezza Rice to speak at their universities in the name of free speech.

These people have had their say. Some of them even orchestrated the Iraq war. Students protesting their appearance is the informed reaction of conscious human beings, not snowflakes melting under pressure.

_____
That’s not his point anyway. It’s almost a distraction.

This is from the final chapter:

No matter how many vice-presidents, provosts, and deans sprout up, the most important powers are tightly held by a professoriate armed with an enduring sense of entitlement and protected by tenure. Genuine reform will require a change in that settled reality: the abolition not merely of the antiquated institution of tenure but also systems of so-called shared governance that let the inmates quite literally run the asylum.

Somehow, most of the rest of the world manages to cope without anything like tenure, but academics insist they are somehow different. And so for a century or more we have had the sclerotic provision that creates a class of untouchable aristocrats who can’t be fired no matter how awful their teaching has become or whether or not they ever do a stitch of research.

Sykes believes that academia is an “university industrial complex” that has an agenda to insulate its members from accountability while they create a money-making machine on the backs of taxpayers and student debt.

The liberal elite, in other words.

Sykes goes so far out of his way to avoid blaming profiteering and the business mindset taking over the university he ignores the obvious way businessmen will seize and monopolize the online courses he is so hopeful will break the grip liberal elites allegedly have on higher learning.

Tenured professors are vanishing in the face of this university model. They are not getting rich. Administration, lenders, and yes the Federal Government are the ones raking in the money. Sykes has been reading the statistics but clearly hasn’t been speaking to any professors.

There are better books on this subject. Don’t waste your time with this one.

[Budd Margolis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goodreads star rating system should be more precise. This book is not a 4 star but maybe 3.6 There is an obvious conservative bias which influences many of the critical points being made. This is an attack against Federal funding of Universities and student loans which is connected to subprime loans and a bubble crisis. Universities are spending huge sums on stadiums and sport centers but very few programs deliver a return. Professors hardly teach underclass, grade inflation and the reduction of the value of a degree continues. There are too many Universities and endless expansion is going to backfire and soon. Why do we need expensive loans for Starbuck baristas? Sex abuse on campus is a problem but is it 1 in 5 or .06 rate of rape? Campuses should not police or provide a justice system to their student bodies. We do not need everyone to have a 4-year degree. Harvard could have 10m online students in 10 years and online degrees could be FREE. So, some good points and I agree we must debate and improve schools and this debate should have started decades ago and never stopped. There is no mention of better systems such as in Finland, France the UK where an undergraduate degree takes just 3 years and students are provided with affordable loan schemes. I disagree with the idea that a liberal arts degree is a waste of time but I understand that not everyone is suited for or will benefit from such an education. We need to promote an affordable system which provides better skills and programs for the next generation. This downward trend of quality is gaining speed and getting worse, not better. This book raises all these points and more and has a few ideas which spark the debate. The only problem is no one had taken the bait.

[Tracy Montefour · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not good. While the author had some good points I found they were all tossed out the window once I read his chapters on grievance and rape. Shame on him. I can agree that yes, there are times when the victim isn't really the victim and fabrication and embellished facts twist what really happened. But what about the thousands of times when it really is rape? I don't recommend this book. If you're a parent of college age kids or soon to be college bound, get your facts elsewhere or at least read this with great caution. I agree there's colleges and universities out there who fail our kids. But I also think a lot of it is due to students not being prepared and thus unable to stand up for themselves or even wanting to.

[Chanel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The promise of education and how it was supposed to lift many out of poverty and to the promised land.

However, the rules changed when specific demographics wanted to change the landscape of society and educate themselves about the different experiences of their ancestors.

Many schools cannot or will not offer internships or experiences for graduate students. The students are to blame if they cannot locate a job.

Both students and parents are in debt because of the advisement that college was a must; meanwhile, jobs in trades desperately need skilled workers to fill jobs.

It is truly a shame that we find ourselves in a predicament regarding education. It didn't have to be this way. This book was an eye-opener about education in the classroom and outside of it.

[Joseph Bredesen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent book, but insensitive on trigger warnings, safe spaces, rape and PC. Good points on campus athletics and cheating, debatable on tenure, and missing the point on online learning. I think some of it will replace the conventional classroom, but you need the give and take of the classroom and MOOC charged at free is not sustainable; you are going to at the least need someone to do busy work: answering questions, grading paper (teacher assistants) etc. And missing the point on funding. Free college boosts graduation rates. Good point on how students need some skin in the game as it relates to online learning.

[Bret Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a university professor for nearly 30 years, I live what is written in this book every day. Sykes hits every single issue currently plaguing higher ed with insightful accuracy. Very quotable, my favorite: "...and almost no institution in the modern world has proven to be more impervious to reform than the modern university." Yes, indeed, that hits the bull's eye dead center. And, if anything, how universities handled the Covid situation further reinforces just how old-fashioned and traditionalist higher ed is. A great read for anyone concerned with higher education...