Charles Sykes believes that higher education has lost its way and its purpose. He is angry and sees higher ed as a gigantic scam. Sykes assembles as many complaints, criticisms and shortcomings as possible in an unremittingly shrill jeremiad, Fail U.: The False Promise of Higher Education. It paints a extraordinarily dire picture of higher education, replete with villains (faculty and administrators) and victims (students and the public at large). Bad faith is woven throughout. Understanding Sykes’s book and his argument is important for anyone interested in strengthening higher education and bolstering its supporters. Be warned in advance, though, there is much to address.
Among Sykes’s many issues:
- Rising cost of tuition and fees. “Sending a child to private university now is like buying a BMW every year – and driving it off a cliff.”
- Student debt is out of control and will hurt the economy for decades.
- College graduates often do not end up in careers that align with their field of study and/or in careers that can pay for themselves.
- Many colleges and universities have abandoned their commitment to teaching.
- Many colleges and universities waste their money on things other than education.
- Colleges and universities do not offer coherent curriculum.
- Many colleges promote ideological conformity.
- A bachelor’s degree does not signify much more than student survival.
- Too many students are going to college. It is not not for all.
- Too many students spend too much time and money on college.
- Too many students go to the wrong college and/or study the wrong subjects.
Sykes made many of the same arguments in his earlier book, Profscam. He refers to it regularly in Fail U. and complains about the lack of action and serious response that the 1988 volume generated.
Looking more systematically at Sykes’s issues, it becomes clear that his complaints rest on selective choice, not systematic evaluation. For example, his argument that faculty teaching loads do not always support teaching may have some merit, but it only really applies at research institutions. Faculty roles there, by definition, are often about scholarship and research. Faculty teaching loads and responsibilities vary across institutions. Sykes argument does not hold up across all of higher education. Further, the reduction in the number of tenured faculty (and the overall increase in part-time faculty) has placed additional responsibilities on faculty shoulders. This is not examined in the book. Sykes assumes that most faculty do not want to teach. He also believes that faculty do not spend much time or effort working, and that when they do work, many teach badly. To support his claims, he chooses studies and reports that highlight a shortcoming here or a problem there. He ignores that massive work that higher education has expanded on improving the student experience, as well as all of the studies that show that students are learning.
Along similar lines, Sykes critiques the spurious nature of much academic research. He finds titles of papers, books, theses and dissertations that he views as useless or ridiculous. Are they? It’s been my experience that when one looks closely, there are almost always good reasons for a scholar’s choices. I would wager, too, that Sykes did not investigate the studies referenced, but instead just picked up titles that he thought were lampoon-worthy. And as anyone who spent time in an open stacks library looking at specialized journals knows, it is not difficult to find articles with extremely esoteric titles.
Sykes argues that the students are spending less time on their academic work (mostly true) and are receiving better grades (harder to prove, but probably accurate). This, he believes, undermines the rigor and validity of the academic enterprise. Missing is understanding that more students are going to college part-time, more students are working while studying, and that there are a myriad of good reasons not to confuse the failure rate of students with rigor.
Sykes argues that colleges and other leaders delude students into believing that they are college material, that they can do academic work, and more damningly, that the work that they do will pay off in terms of a job or career. Increased students in developmental education, he argues, supports his claims. This rests on a set of assumptions, not spelled out here, about what college should be – and it most definitely is not democratic. It also depends upon the belief that humans have fixed potential and that there are appropriate ways to decide what that potential might be. I strenuously disagree with both assertions.
In terms of costs and function, Sykes sees colleges as bloated organization mostly interested in their own needs – not the needs of their students. Salaries are too high (for faculty and administrators), buildings are too fancy, and academic priorities are lost. It is interesting to consider Sykes on these issues, who is conflicted in his tendencies. On one hand, he is a conservative keen on keeping the hand of government light and out of academia. However, he sees problems if colleges do operate as market driven organizations making choices to attract enrollment. Sykes complains that when they do so, investing in things like student centers, institutions are irresponsibly diverting valuable resources and driving up costs. Perhaps one of the underlying difficulties is that the market does not prioritize the values that Sykes endorses.
Also on Sykes radar are academic scandals (we can always find a few), political correctness, and students acting out about issues that bother them. It makes for another contrast. On one hand, Sykes finds students coddled and disengaged. On the other, he does not like it when they become activists.
What does Sykes want? Fewer people going to college, fewer colleges, and less aid so that the entire enterprise is reduced – from institutions to students. The how and why of this are not spelled out. The present day is dire according to Sykes and his professed future does not offer any meaningful improvement.
Fail U. is not a fair or balanced study. It is an attack on higher education – and if you are interested in knowing how higher ed is being attacked, it is a very good place to start. If you are keen on finding ways to make higher education improve, look elsewhere.
David Potash