For a university discussion group this summer, I read William Deresiewicz's book Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life (2014).

Deresiewicz, a former Yale English professor, caused quite a stir in higher education circles with his Don't Send Your Kid to the Ivy League article in the New Republic (and other articles in various outlets), which promoted Excellent Sheep pre-publication.

Deresiewicz's attack on the ivy league can be summarized as follows:

• Encourages a system that leads to resume-padding instead of authentic learning and service
• Too much focus on future financial success and not enough focus on life's big questions
• Not enough socioeconomic diversity
• Faculty preoccupied with research and do not spend enough time on teaching/service
• Risk-taking is not encouraged; error for margin for students is too small
• Coursework not rigorous enough
• Students are kept doing busy-work rather than allowed to explore
• Encourages a system that can lead to depression, isolation, etc. 

Deresiewicz taught at Yale for 10 years and was supposedly denied tenure in 2008. When I found out that Deresiewicz's was denied tenure, I was tempted to write off his book as sour grapes, but I think it best to evaluate his claims on their own merit.

In my view, Deresiewicz doesn't bring much new to the conversation, and a number of his challenges to the ivy league could be brought against many colleges and universities. His proposed solution is for students to consider attending a small liberal arts college (where teaching is still a priority) or a state school (where there is much more true diversity). Deresiewicz, however, seems to underestimate the value of connections, brand, resources, and opportunities at ivy league schools. 

Deresiewicz also laments the dwindling interest in the liberal arts and the increasing focus on majors that are more directly profession-focused (like economics and finance). While Deresiewicz seems to realize the risk in turning down an ivy league education and also choosing a major like History or English, he does not seem to fully realize how some students simply cannot afford those risks. While return on investment should certainly not be the only focus in choosing a school and a major, it is rightfully important to many.

Personally, I don't think the entire 242-page book was worth the read. There simply was not much new, aside from a few glimpses behind the curtain at Yale. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have just stuck with Deresiewicz's article and the responses (e.g., here and here).