My review of this self-indulgent, angry book is quite similar to @Anthony's 1 star review. With a few additions: these are not new ideas. The argument for a well rounded education and no pre-professional education has been around as long as the American education system. He regularly contradicts himself (celebrating European education which is focused entirely on one field and then denigrating any American student who chooses their profession when they're 18). His ideas aren't all wrong or bad, but the anger in which he presents them forces you to question his own underlying issues, which mirrors the sort of education he spends 200 pages ranting about.

My biggest problem with this book, however, is his massive over-generalizations of every student, every elite school, and every college in America. His thesis seems to be to avoid Ivy League schools at all costs because they will not educate you in the way he thinks they should. He puts little to no onus on the student to figure out how to learn or what they want to learn or that the student might thrive, get educated, and live a fulfilling life after going to an elite school.

I am a state school grad myself, and I saw all of the "atrocities" that he thinks are specific to elite schools prevalent in my school: fear of failure, pre-professional education, confusion at graduation leading to joining a pre-prescribed career because that's who recruits on campus. Not that these are not concerning trends, but they are not unique to elite schools nor problems for every student.

Would have been a five star but the last part of the book left me a bit unsatisfied. I am going to recommend this to all my friends in college or those who are about to start and also some of my teachers.

We have tried aristocracy. We have tried meritocracy. Now it's time to try democracy.

Disappointing in light of the two thoughtful and well-articulated articles from which it grew:
The Disadvantages of an Elite Education: https://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/
Solitude and Leadership: https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/#.VWJX4GTBzRY

There's not much more here, in 240 pages, than you'll find in those two much tauter articles. I do think the leadership chapter acts as a nice companion to and expansion of the West Point speech, which given the very specific context and audience has a much narrower scope. In Excellent Sheep, Deresiewicz challenges the current cult of leadership: "Instead of training 'leaders,' how about training citizens?'" he enjoins. He points out that "leadership" seems to mean little beyond getting to the top. All too often we conflate positions of leadership and ambition for leadership with the character traits that underlie strong leadership. Deresiewicz shows us that the traits necessary to obtain leadership roles, particularly in bureaucracies, are often in direct conflict with the traits of a "good leader," as popularly defined.

The book does a fair job of disrobing the emperor - meritocracy, the ivy league, "success" in its most milquetoast forms, but I'm not sure it goes far enough in its critique. "I'm not suggesting students ought to take to the streets..." he back-pedals after decrying cowardice. And why not? "Every person needs to find their own path..." he explains, allowing the same cowardice to be refashioned a personal choice, what's right for "me," etc.

At one point he describes how the research-focus of our university system perversely rewards mediocre to poor teaching. "There is a large public debate in this country about primary and secondary education. There is now another, equally public debate about higher education. What I fail to understand is why they aren't the same debate." Oh, man. Be careful what you wish for! "We all know that students in elementary and high school learn best in small classrooms with individualized attention of motivated teachers..." Do we all know that? John Hattie's very influential Visible Learning provides some solid evidence to the contrary. I have my own critique for Hattie's research, but here Deresiewicz belies his ignorance of the K12 world. As a teacher, I cannot tell you the number of times I was reminded, "there is no correlation between student achievement and class size." He acts as though the MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are only affecting higher education, when in fact there is a huge push in the same direction for K12.

The last chapter was perhaps the most disappointing - here Deresiewicz posits a solution to all the evils he's uncovered: we must ensure "privilege cannot be handed down." This is about as practical as rule by a philosopher king. If this is in fact a serious suggestion, it needs more than a few pages of exposition. Similarly, his final exhortation, "Now it's time to try democracy" is rhetorically pleasant but meaningless without further reflection on what exactly he means by democracy.

I suppose I am most disappointed because I have so much respect for Deresiewicz - he seems capable of much deeper analysis.

Excellent Sheep is a fantastic critique of the elite educational system in America. It made me question my own outlook on the education I've received and how I interact with people with different educational backgrounds from my own.

One quote that really stuck out to me from this book was "education is more than the acquisition of marketable skills, and you are more than your ability to contribute to your employer’s bottom line or the nation’s GDP".

I'd recommend this book to anyone, but especially to people who have received an elite education, who want to reflect on their own upbringing and the role they play in our system.

I am no "Elite University" student, however, the first half of the book was more than intriguing and in ways also relatable. The pressure that society sets on young people is simply immense and the expectations of us seem to be getting higher every day.

Does the ranking of the University you attend really show what kind of person you are? I doubt it. Yet here we are, asking where you went to get your education. It is sickening that we rate ourselves like this.

Content-wise I thought the last half was a bit repetitive, but I overall enjoyed the new perspective on Universities.

Had to read this for school. Not my favorite book, but it was interesting especially because I will begin the college admissions process next year.

He starts to go off the rails a bit by the end, by which I mean his initially focused and perceptive insight into the state of elite education and the students who are getting dragged along through it turns into something more of an angry rant against everyone and everything. Still a necessary book, one that a lot of my classmates should read, but I can't shake the feeling that Deresiewicz picked to wide a brush to paint his picture of the current student climate.

Also: the best education can be found at religious colleges and it's a shame that the clergy is disappearing as a vocation, yet religion is something that students ought to distance themselves from, George Eliot-style, if they have any hopes of doing anything great and world-changing? Not enough, Will. Elaborate.

This was my first required reading for the first semester of my sophomore year of college in my class, Political and Social Thought, and my second time reading the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, the first time being in middle school on my own time. From brazen acts of vicious cruelty such as beating slaves to half-death or abandoning an elderly enslaved mother after decades of birthing children abused for decades by the slave-holders, as well as the power to "shut up [enslaved persons] in mental darkness" (75) by associating liberty with an overindulgent hangover from alcohol. Interestingly enough, Douglass also depicts slavery as an evil unleashed onto the oppressed and oppressor alike: Sohpie Auld, who is introduced as a gentle young white lady transforms into a master who abuses those she legally owns as much as her husband does (28). Injustice appears to harms both sides of marginalized interactions.