What do you think?
Rate this book
Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America
American higher education is increasingly in trouble. Universities are facing an uncertain and unsettling future with free speech suppression, out-of-control Federal student aid programs, soaring administrative costs, and intercollegiate athletics mired in corruption. Restoring the Promise explores these issues and exposes the federal government’s role in contributing to them. With up-to-date discussions of the most recent developments on university campuses, this book is the most comprehensive assessment of universities in recent years.
416 pages, Hardcover
Published May 1, 2019
15 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
September 12, 2021
This was a very interesting book, well written and researched. The author has been in academia for 50 years and did not hold back on his criticisms. Most importantly, he is an economist, who brought a very practical business man’s approach to the topic.
To me, hire education has built a moat around itself and the only way to attack it is from within. The author confirms this supposition, and points to the expansion of the federal government funding (student financial aid, grants and loans) of hire education as one of the major culprits.
Hire education has no open market forces acting upon it, so change will not happen as in the private sector.
One of the key points is that colleges turn out too many mediocre students, such that there is underemployment of graduates. There simply are not enough jobs in the private sector to absorb the number of graduates. There are virtually no businesses in the private sector that would do this. Colleges collect tuition and funding from the government and crank out useless products that market has no need or use for. Students are saddled with very high debt loads that they cannot repay, and colleges are not impacted in the least by this phenomenon. The author argues that colleges should have skin in the game. I agree.
Of great frustration are the workloads of tenured professors. Their teaching load is very small, less than 10 hours a week with the balance of their time devoted to research. Their salaries, in the $200,000 range at the top of elite schools is laughable. The author argues, and I agree, this is a terrible utilization of resources, the kind that would never happen in the private sector. Too many schools use graduated students to teach while professors are focused on “publish or perish.” This leaves students with a suboptimal learning experience, which is a crime because of the high tuition they pay.
He points to buildings, food service and athletics as a drain on resources and a distraction from teaching. Competition of public / not for profit by for profit concerns is met with resistance from the government and others, which is terrible as for profit competition has the ability to induce some much needed change on the leviathan that is hire education.
To me, hire education has built a moat around itself and the only way to attack it is from within. The author confirms this supposition, and points to the expansion of the federal government funding (student financial aid, grants and loans) of hire education as one of the major culprits.
Hire education has no open market forces acting upon it, so change will not happen as in the private sector.
One of the key points is that colleges turn out too many mediocre students, such that there is underemployment of graduates. There simply are not enough jobs in the private sector to absorb the number of graduates. There are virtually no businesses in the private sector that would do this. Colleges collect tuition and funding from the government and crank out useless products that market has no need or use for. Students are saddled with very high debt loads that they cannot repay, and colleges are not impacted in the least by this phenomenon. The author argues that colleges should have skin in the game. I agree.
Of great frustration are the workloads of tenured professors. Their teaching load is very small, less than 10 hours a week with the balance of their time devoted to research. Their salaries, in the $200,000 range at the top of elite schools is laughable. The author argues, and I agree, this is a terrible utilization of resources, the kind that would never happen in the private sector. Too many schools use graduated students to teach while professors are focused on “publish or perish.” This leaves students with a suboptimal learning experience, which is a crime because of the high tuition they pay.
He points to buildings, food service and athletics as a drain on resources and a distraction from teaching. Competition of public / not for profit by for profit concerns is met with resistance from the government and others, which is terrible as for profit competition has the ability to induce some much needed change on the leviathan that is hire education.
June 30, 2021
This was more a curiosity read than anything else. I don't really have enough experience in the field to meaningfully weigh Vedder's arguments, but his reasoning seemed sound for the most part in his critique of the ways that higher education is currently run in the US. Some of his recommendations seemed rather fanciful, but others could perhaps stand a chance of happening. The audience for this book seems to be more politicians/people with the ability to effect meaningful change (hence why this is just a curiosity read for me), but it was an interesting book nonetheless.
Rating: 3.5 Stars (Good).
Rating: 3.5 Stars (Good).
November 8, 2019
Poorly written, cherry-picked data to support one sided claims, elitist.
September 10, 2020
There are many bold claims in this book. It holds no punches, and has a clear ideology in mind (albeit, one without a clear solution for the current predicament of US college debt and financing troubles). I respect the author's intent, and appreciate their take on a burgeoning policy challenge.
That being said, the claims about the benefits yielded by universities are heavily skewed. Are costs high? DEFINITELY. Out-of-touch with the average American household? ABSOLUTELY. However, there are a number of oversimplified arguments that do not sit well for me. I'm covering a few of these below.
A brief section, but one where the author swings a hefty punch, is on university research. The author heavily implies that research dollars might have greater efficiency and delivery of benefit if geared towards "specialized research institutions" rather than distributed to many dozens of colleges and universities around ths US. This is already done (e.g., various national labs, thinktanks, and various other academic research organizations), yet whether such a model is preferable to the university model (teaching PLUS research) is unclear. Research contributions of graduate and undergraduate students should not be discounted - especially with emerging technologies.
Further, the author's argument of 'diminishing returns' on research ventures is one that has been raised for over a century...and continuously proven incorrect. Are some fields faster growing than others? Absolutely. Does that mean that slower growing fields have little value relative to investments into time, overhead, and other resources? Definitely not. Research is fundamentally an exploration of science - something that is loss leading, not profit maximizing. By streamlining basic and/or applied research to fit economic and political mores of the day, our research capabilities would become quickly silo'ed and stovepiped, and antithetical to scientific progress. Scientific grants are highly competitive - if a scientist can demonstrate that their theories on Shakespearean literature MIGHT yield untold benefits to human knowledge, then categorically denying such research at first pass would be foolish.
My overall opinion is that the piece attempts to accomplish too much, when a more targeted focus upon the various costs of educating an American student would likely have been more effective.
That being said, the claims about the benefits yielded by universities are heavily skewed. Are costs high? DEFINITELY. Out-of-touch with the average American household? ABSOLUTELY. However, there are a number of oversimplified arguments that do not sit well for me. I'm covering a few of these below.
A brief section, but one where the author swings a hefty punch, is on university research. The author heavily implies that research dollars might have greater efficiency and delivery of benefit if geared towards "specialized research institutions" rather than distributed to many dozens of colleges and universities around ths US. This is already done (e.g., various national labs, thinktanks, and various other academic research organizations), yet whether such a model is preferable to the university model (teaching PLUS research) is unclear. Research contributions of graduate and undergraduate students should not be discounted - especially with emerging technologies.
Further, the author's argument of 'diminishing returns' on research ventures is one that has been raised for over a century...and continuously proven incorrect. Are some fields faster growing than others? Absolutely. Does that mean that slower growing fields have little value relative to investments into time, overhead, and other resources? Definitely not. Research is fundamentally an exploration of science - something that is loss leading, not profit maximizing. By streamlining basic and/or applied research to fit economic and political mores of the day, our research capabilities would become quickly silo'ed and stovepiped, and antithetical to scientific progress. Scientific grants are highly competitive - if a scientist can demonstrate that their theories on Shakespearean literature MIGHT yield untold benefits to human knowledge, then categorically denying such research at first pass would be foolish.
My overall opinion is that the piece attempts to accomplish too much, when a more targeted focus upon the various costs of educating an American student would likely have been more effective.
July 9, 2020
I read this to collaborate on a book review. Hopefully that will be published but the short is that he makes really great thought-provoking points when he is speaking as an economist. He lacks the depth of knowledge in student affairs scholarship.
Read
May 9, 2022If you want to understand why college has become so expensive, read this book.
August 23, 2019
This is a very comprehensive critique of higher education in America. It is well researched and backed up by facts. Yet it is nuanced, tentative where it needed to be. Vedder carefully qualifies his views where statistics are not conclusive.
Vedder critiques yet provides viable solution's to the university's demise. In this sense, it is a very hopeful book. Vedder is a life-long academic which lends credence to his argument; he is an insider but an honest one. He acknowledges the many and varied contributions the university makes to society and culture, but he also see perversity in the ranks. Eye-opening to me were the chapters on endowments and governance. And of course, federal funding gets hammered as it is almost single in driving up the cost of education. The growth in federal control over high education has exacerbated the problems: higher costs, inflated bureaucracy, reduced learning and poorer employment opportunities for graduates.
Vedder critiques yet provides viable solution's to the university's demise. In this sense, it is a very hopeful book. Vedder is a life-long academic which lends credence to his argument; he is an insider but an honest one. He acknowledges the many and varied contributions the university makes to society and culture, but he also see perversity in the ranks. Eye-opening to me were the chapters on endowments and governance. And of course, federal funding gets hammered as it is almost single in driving up the cost of education. The growth in federal control over high education has exacerbated the problems: higher costs, inflated bureaucracy, reduced learning and poorer employment opportunities for graduates.
July 25, 2020
It has taken me several months to complete this book and the journey of the read was very much worth the investment of time. Especially during this pandemic, so many of our colleges and universities are struggling with their financial model. This book does a great job exposing the numerous financial investments which universities have made which relate nothing to the education of students.
After reading this book, I really feel like 50% of our current universities will cease to exist over the next 50 years. Financial bloat and a complete disconnect from the traditional mission of teaching and learning has occurred and without a course correction will doom many in the domain of higher education.
After reading this book, I really feel like 50% of our current universities will cease to exist over the next 50 years. Financial bloat and a complete disconnect from the traditional mission of teaching and learning has occurred and without a course correction will doom many in the domain of higher education.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews