Rating: 
Summary: Devastating
Review: ...As I stated in my opening paragraph, I believe the title of the book is actually a misnomer. This might be the only real criticism I have of the book. At the end of Chapter 10, Sperber tries to argue that schools receiving negative ratings re party schools that have the beer and circus. I think he commits a post hoc fallacy by attempting to assert that the big - time sports is a cause of the party image and negative rating. At best, I think he proves a correlation between big-time sports and negative academic ratings but that is more a function of misplaced priorities of administrators, legislators and alumni than anything else. To reduce the argument the way he has is to do the rest of his well developed and insightful criticism a disservice.
Rating:
Summary: The Title is a misnomer, but the book is excellent
Review: ...As I stated in my opening paragraph, I believe the title of the book is actually a misnomer. This might be the only real criticism I have of the book. At the end of Chapter 10, Sperber tries to argue that schools receiving negative ratings re party schools that have the beer and circus. I think he commits a post hoc fallacy by attempting to assert that the big - time sports is a cause of the party image and negative rating. At best, I think he proves a correlation between big-time sports and negative academic ratings but that is more a function of misplaced priorities of administrators, legislators and alumni than anything else. To reduce the argument the way he has is to do the rest of his well developed and insightful criticism a disservice.
Rating: 
Summary: Bitter
Review: A bitter book from a bitter man.
Rating: 
Summary: Eye Opening
Review: As an Englishman living in the United States, I can never get enthusiastic about college sports. I have no alleigance to a US college, so why bother? This book is an eye opener and no mistake. The author says, if your are not in the "Honors Program", then by and large you are going to receive a pretty mediocre undergraduate education if your University is a big time NCAA school. Students don't get a good education, but the university needs their tuition dollars, so it distracts them with the "Beer and Circus" mentality of big time sports. Not only is this a shame, it is a disgrace. He backs up his arguments too with many quotes and references. I was particularly interested in the role he gives to ESPN in this.
Rating:
Summary: Sperber's Writing Binge
Review: Did Murray Sperber ever learn to think critically? If he tried to talk tough with Bobby Knight using sports jargon he would be laughed out of the room! Who knows more sports jargon and has all the winning cards, the dumb jock or the arrogant book worm?
Sperber argues that scholar/teachers are outdated but a rank/tenure committee can count papers or books or cites where as only the worst and best teachers have a record.
Ironicly, coaches are one of the few teaching species that have a demonstrable record which is why Knight could get away with anything.
Grade schools have discouraged teachers in droves by trying to justify raises using test scores and bias evaluations. Should research universities turn into popularity contests and experiments in test taking or should the public trust traditional proven methods of retention and promotion?
Rating:
Summary: Sperber's Writing Binge
Review: Did Murray Sperber ever learn to think critically? If he tried to talk tough with Bobby Knight using sports jargon he would be laughed out of the room! Who knows more sports jargon and has all the winning cards, the dumb jock or the arrogant book worm?
Sperber argues that scholar/teachers are outdated but a rank/tenure committee can count papers or books or cites where as only the worst and best teachers have a record.
Ironicly, coaches are one of the few teaching species that have a demonstrable record which is why Knight could get away with anything.
Grade schools have discouraged teachers in droves by trying to justify raises using test scores and bias evaluations. Should research universities turn into popularity contests and experiments in test taking or should the public trust traditional proven methods of retention and promotion?
Rating:
Summary: Sperber's Argument is Sound
Review: Earlier reviewers' criticisms that claim Sperber overstates his argument are oblivious to the economic politics of book publishing. It is common place for authors to rescind control over book titles as publishers continue to market books based on their "cover" not on their content. In fact, Sperber argued with Henry Holt and Company over the subtitle because, he claimed, it overstated what his data suggested. Anyone who actually read--and paid attention to--the limitations of this work as set forth in the "Preface" would know that. But, given the sophmoric banter that apologists for the interests under scrutiny have advanced in previous reviews, it is evident that they did not attend to them (the limitations). Anyone who claims that the over-emphasis placed on binge drinking in college communitites--which is really Sperber's argument (college communities not college campuses)--is defensible is blind to a significant matter of public health and is merely in denial. Sperber makes clear that he is neither anti-college athletics NOR anti-Big Time University. Anyone coming away from this work believing so both embodies and performs his argument about the climate in which "quality" education is currently marketed. In the end, Sperber's work functions to explain, simply, ONE of the many factors contributing to unhealthy, addicitive, and destructive environments in which college students currently find themselves. He doesn't claim to do anything more, so when he doesn't I'm not sure why he receives mis-placed criticism
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting but overstated and underanalyzed
Review: Few would question the growing imbalance between academics and athletics at "big name" universities. The problem is not a simple one, and certainly not a simple conflict between undergraduate teaching and televised football and basketball at major research universities. Honors programs at mammoth schools may offer small classes, but its unlikely that they'll solve the problem either. While the anecdotes are colorful and disturbing, Sperber's research is flawed by the manner in which he collects and reports data. Passing out surveys in his class and posting a questionnaire on a web site do not produce representative, meaningful numbers or conclusions, although he draws repeated inferences. It is not at all obvious that the demise of big-time athletics would restore excellence to undergraduate teaching and, if he looked harder, he'd find that some honors programs provide little rigor. And I doubt some of the faculty would be up to the rigors of teaching four or five classes of demanding students. Sperber's best conclusion is the "don't bother me and I won't bother you" truce between partying students and uninvolved faculty. Faculty can make a difference, but they have to first put in the effort. And paying "student" athletes is not the solution; it would make things worse. Parents and students have surrendered their responsibilites to EARN an education. What did they think they were getting when they enrolled? Are parents and students that rich and that dumb that they don't care? don't ask? don't know? Universities are no longer the refined temples of wisdom Sperber remembers. As millions of students poured into universities and they became big business -- they have replaced steel mills as the factories of our age, "knowledge factories" -- and marketing and mass production were sure to follow. All we need are some discerning customers.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: Finally someone speaks the truth!
Dr. Sperber is a leading proponent for reforming the NCAA and it's about time people start listening... END THE SHAM OF AMATEUR COLLEGE ATHLETICS!
Rating:
Summary: Flawed but on target
Review: First, the premise - Prof. Sperber argues that many Division I schools are shortchanging undergraduate students. He cites: * Chasing research dollars and "publish or perish", so that * Professors don't teach undergraduates - they get lectures.. * Unless they are honors students, who do get quality education. * To make up for this, universities promote fraternities.... * And big-time athletics, with beer companies paying part of... * the freight, with resources sunk into athletic facilities. I went to a Division III school (Pace University in NY) so I never encountered this. But, I can see how this works - the University of New Hampshire has invested its money recently into athletics facilities (after reviewing market research). And, more than a few people in the state have noticed - so they may find this book providing an explanation for these actions. The book does get quite repetitious with its premise, and it also ignores Division II schools completely (focusing on the differences between Div I-A and Div III (which do not award athletic scholarships). That would have provided a more complete test of this theory. Finally, one might ask why he chooses to teach at a large university, if it is really that bad. Professor Sperber was the biggest critic of the recently deposed Bob Knight - but he is only mentioned in passing here, which another respondent lamented. My guess is that he didn't want that to be the raison d'etre of the book, and have it overshadow the book's message. Besides, he already received enough death threats. All in all - a compelling read. Even if you don't accept the book's premise, you may find at least some parts resonating. Or, at least challenging.
| 
