Profscam

Rating:
Summary: Genuine issues undermined by sensationalist generalizations
Review: I read Profscam because I so enjoyed and agreed with two of Charles Sykes's other books: Dumbing Down Our Kids and A Nation Of Victims. However, I was bothered by the sweeping generalizations that he makes in Profscam. What most concerned me was his blanket statements about all faculty in higher education. Based on the examples/data he uses throughout his book he clearly is targeting the behavior of full professors in the top 10 "Research I" institutions, but then tries to generalize this behavior to all faculty members, of all ranks, at all (private and public) institutions of higher education. Although we've all heard of "hot shots" in various fields who teach little, make more than $100K/year, and have all of the perks associated with such positions, those individuals are the exception, not the norm. Salaries among educators are notoriously low. The average faculty member in higher education makes less money than the average lawyer, physician, or middle-level manager, even though the number of years spent in school in order to obtain his/her Ph.D. degree is higher than that for the other occupations. A disturbing comment Sykes makes is that faculty only work the 8-16 hours a week that they're in the classroom teaching. This is as distorted as believing that lawyers only work when they're in court or physicians only work while operating on someone. Perhaps the "hot shots" in Research I institutions teach the same courses using old notes or can obtain teaching waivers if they have important grants, as Sykes implies, but the average academic easily spends 50-70 hours/week on teaching, course preparation and grading, advising/mentoring, writing, research, and university committee and community work. Even if we look only at Research I institutions, Sykes's accusation that students are not being taught by faculty is misplaced. Students who apply to such Research I institutions do so because of their reputation. However, few students ponder where that reputation originates. Quite simply, it comes from the research that the faculty conduct. Prospective students and parents are deluding themselves if they expect to find a lot of one-on-one attention from such faculty members. A quick look at these institutions' mission statements, the existence of doctoral graduate programs, and the student:teacher ratios should provide a clear indication that these institutions' goals are research-oriented not teaching-oriented. To go there expecting them to be teaching-oriented seems naïve and Sykes's accusation places blame on the wrong shoulders. The counter argument here might be, if these Research I institutions are not taking their teaching duties seriously then why should be they be paid to "exist" in the first place? But to that objection must be framed a counter-question: "who is to conduct 'pure' research if not the faculty members in higher education?" I agree with Sykes that sometimes this research is trivial and not applicable to larger social problems but the hallmark of such research is that it is (comparatively) less-biased than the politically-determined governmental research or the for-profit research conducted in industry because the sponsors are not as explicitly after particular results that will enhance their positions/status (or pockets). As a result, polemical areas can be studied without concern for reprisals (one of the key reasons for the need for tenure). In addition, research also benefits teaching, both invigorating those who produce the scholarship and aiding those who use the textbooks which frequently result from it. Sykes's assertion that tenured faculty go unpunished is simply false. There are many subtle and not so subtle ways of punishing the tenured, from taking away laboratory space, switching offices, not giving raises, pressuring them to teach "service" courses, blackballing their grants, to administrative pressure to resign or accept a buyout or the simple elimination of a position and the professor along with it. On a more positive note, I do agree with Sykes's overall assertion that students are not getting as good an undergraduate education as they could/deserve. This may be partially because of the emphasis on research and lack of contact with faculty members that he describes but I also believe it is because of the desire for applied pre-professional education demanded by students today. As Sykes points out, the original ideal of an intellectual background of shared knowledge that would make all individuals "learned" is fading. That is a pity. While he blames the early German, research-centered model of higher education, he neglects to mention the overpowering effect of the Progressive era in this country and its appeal to application and utility. He is also quite on target in bemoaning the trendy focus on "theory" in the humanities, and the profspeak which, although he attributes to all academics, is more rampant among the poststructuralists. His complaint about offering narrow, specialized, and esoteric courses at the expense of broad core curriculum courses that would allow for a shared body of knowledge couldn't be more accurate. In today's highly politicized and overly sensitive academic environment, diversity and rejection of a purported elitism tend to be explanations or excuses provided for this. But Sykes's argument that it is less work to deconstruct than to construct seems more adequate, particularly in the areas where poststructuralism is most prevalent (literature and literary theory, communication, semiotics, english, history, philosophy). It is hard to contribute something original to the literature when you're using texts that have already been studied for centuries. It is easier to create a career out of deconstructing them. Overall, although I enjoyed this book, I think it's unfortunate that the genuine issues Sykes is trying to highlight ended up undermined by his sensationalistic, journalistic style of writing.

Rating:
Summary: hatchet job but has some good points also
Review: I'm a prof but was a student, when this book was written. I seldom had a class taught by a TA. When I did, it was excellent. I had close interactions with famous profs throughout my education. But Sykes's anecdotes are real stories during the same period as my education. Many of his observations, of how the academic game is played, are also true. The take-home message is: let the buyer beware. It's a gross error of the book to do a hatchet job on profs -- you can find good ones all over. But if you don't do your homework, you could spend megabucks on higher education and get ripped off. I'm thankful to have had the opposite experience. I started by choosing to attend Seattle University, where it was obvious they actually read my required essay from the application, unlike several top-ranked schools that had accepted me. From there, I was mostly lucky. It's still possible to get an excellent value for your higher education dollar. This book throws the baby out with the bath water, but it does tell you what to watch out for.

Rating:
Summary: hatchet job but has some good points also
Review: I'm a prof but was a student, when this book was written. I seldom had a class taught by a TA. When I did, it was excellent. I had close interactions with famous profs throughout my education. But Sykes's anecdotes are real stories during the same period as my education. Many of his observations, of how the academic game is played, are also true. The take-home message is: let the buyer beware. It's a gross error of the book to do a hatchet job on profs -- you can find good ones all over. But if you don't do your homework, you could spend megabucks on higher education and get ripped off. I'm thankful to have had the opposite experience. I started by choosing to attend Seattle University, where it was obvious they actually read my required essay from the application, unlike several top-ranked schools that had accepted me. From there, I was mostly lucky. It's still possible to get an excellent value for your higher education dollar. This book throws the baby out with the bath water, but it does tell you what to watch out for.

Rating:
Summary: informative, but hurt by author's extreme bias
Review: If you are looking for "dirty laundry" on university academics, Sykes has a washer-load full. His observations are interesting and insightful, but his presentation is rather extremist, one-sided and excessively pessimistic. If read critically, with effort to penetrate Sykes unabashedly malevolent attitude, there is knowledge to gain. But it is tedious nonetheless.

Rating:
Summary: JournalismScam
Review: If you are looking for a book that finds as many bad examples of bad teaching and bad professorship as a person could find ... this book is for you. But if you want a nuanced, and intelligent, approach to the problems of the professoriate, you will have to look elsewhere. The author piles egregious examples on top of one another and then thinks he has a case. To make the case that he wants, he needs to show that the majority, or at least a significant number, of professors pilfer away their days in idleness. Instead, like journalists who are on the prowl for "bad scoop", Sykes finds what he is was looking for ... but this is journalismscam, not research! I know far too many professors who work too hard even to be bothered with studies like this.

Rating:
Summary: This is the best book written on higher education.
Review: Martin Anderson's, "Imposters in the Temple" is another one.
The people who have slamed this aren't being objective, or
haven't sat through 40 classes at their Institutions like the undergraduates do. I suggest they take a few of the extra hours they don't work and sit through a bunch of classes. But they won't because they have tenure and don't really have to care. Real scholars will come away aghast at what they see, but will have no power to change anything. Syckes has called it like it is.

These books are the most accurate and honest description of
what my undergraduate experience was like. They are also quite
applicable to what I experienced ten years later in graduate school, which was quite recent. Nothing has changed folks. And nothing will change, untill you get involved.

Check out ProfessorWatch.com . This web site claims it was inspired by these books, and they've developed a workable plan to change all this degeneracy.

Rating:
Summary: This Tabloid Journalism Has Feet Of Clay
Review: On the face of it the author makes it appear that he has a well-researched and persuasive case. Profscam is a sloppy and misleading diatribe. A professor myself, I am the subject of one of his claims. I looked into the note that he used to support his claim in my case and found the citation date to be ten months off for the referenced article (Chapter Five, #9, dated January when the publication was the following November). The quote cited was taken out of context and the cited article was decidedly positive while Sykes has tried to make it appear negative. This work is suspect and I am surprised and disappointed in those who have embraced its message. The careful reader will be able to deconstruct the author's real intent only to discover that the exercise was a waste of time.

Rating:
Summary: Accurate depiction of the rot in higher education.
Review: Some professors still revere scholarship and take seriously their professional responsibility to pass their knowledge to succeeding generations. This book is not about them. It is about the growing number who degrade the scholarly tradition, abuse their positions, and cheat their students. I spent 15 years on university faculties. If anything, Mr. Sykes is too kind.

Rating:
Summary: Thumbs up
Review: The author is opinionated, for sure. And not every professor nor university is guilty of the sins mentioned. But a lot of them are, and people in general are so worshipful of academia, that what is said in this book is almost never said. So it is refreshing to see someone actually say, "Look! The emperor is wearing no clothes!"

Rating:
Summary: Anyone in higher education should read this book
Review: This book exposes the myths of undergraduate, graduate and doctoral education in America. From my own experience, and from what I have read in this book, a college education at a community college may be superior to that of an Ivy League college like Harvard or Yale, especially if you end up in a classroom filled with an auditorium of hundreds of students, and in the professor's place is a graduate student teaching assistant who may have no experience in teaching the class you are taking. The professor is not in class because teaching is not what counts, it is meaningless reasearch for publication that allows a college professor to keep his job, and line his pockets with money from corporations who hire him as a consultant away from the college campus. Students deserve better than this! If what is written in this book is true, you just might be better off going to the public library to educate yourself. You won't have a degree, but at least you won't be an uneducated college graduate.