The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University (Issues of Our Time)

Louis Menand makes a powerful argument in this book that the bright line separating the education and research within the academic disciplines from the world outside the ivory tower is very much blurrier than most academics believe. He offers a fascinating history of the modern university as a series of compromises and maneuvers that from their very start were negotiated across that line while trying to patrol and enforce its boundary. The four long chapters of this slim volume trace this topic and its implications through arguments over general education (ch. 1), the (r)evolution in the humanities (ch. 2), the fetishizing of interdisciplinarity (ch. 3), and the socialization of the professoriate (ch. 4). Some readers may recognize parts of ch. 2, which appeared in an earlier version in "The New York Review of Books."While Menand refrains from making many specific recommendations (his goal is to describe the paradoxes and anxieties of the liberal arts academy rather than to advocate for a particular response), one gets the strong sense that he thinks academics should make their peace with the university's inevitable role in the world and stop trying so hard to tilt against it. Such a conclusion is implicit in pithy statements like the following: "To the extent that this system [American higher education, with its roots in the 19th century] still determines the possibilities for producing and disseminating knowledge, trying to reform the contemporary university is like trying to get on the Internet with a typewriter, or like riding a horse to the mall" (17). These are the words of a reformer; though exactly what reforms Menand wants remain unclear, it seems obvious that they will involve higher education embracing its role in the world more self-consciously and vigorously.In that sense, he forms a kind of mirror image to another prolific writer on the higher education scene, Stanley Fish, who also focuses on the fragility of the wall that divides the independent and disinterested quest for knowledge from the yearning many in the contemporary world feel to tear down that wall. Fish, though, is for shoring up the divide (hence, his book "Save the World on Your Own Time"), while Menand accepts that the wall must come down.Menand is a brisk and persuasive writer, and one wants to agree with him. He seems to be on the side of history (and though an English professor, he is also truly interdisciplinary in being a Pulitzer prize-winning historian too). One thing, ironically, that he leaves out of his argument for change, however, is the long historical view. Although the modern American university began in the 19th century, universities existed far earlier than that (going back to the 12th century), and their consituencies are not just present-day students, faculty, politicians, etc. They also serve to link the distant past with the unforeseen future. Universities are thus conservative in the root meaning of that word. Too much attention to the contemporary marketplace of ideas, to which Menand is so sensitive, could be very destructive to the mission of preserving and transmitting cultural traditions like those that belong to the classical past or the Middle Ages. Though Menand acknowledges that his analysis could be considered "presentist," he doesn't really address the full challenge that this accusation represents.

This book is a series of four essays on issues in higher education. The four issues are the role of a general curriculum, the fate of the humanities, interdisciplinarity, and groupthink in the academy. All are worthwhile topics and Menand does a very nice job tying them together, weaving certain themes throughout the work.I most enjoyed the historical background that was included in these essays, particularly in the first two. As a believer in the need to understand where we were in order to understand where we are, the histories that Menand provides were deeply informative.My only frustration is that I left the book, no more sure of where we go next. Many of the issues that Menand addresses have only grown more pressing as the demand for a college education has grown, particularly after the Great Recession. This was probably not one of Menand's goals for the work but for those of us struggling with the future of our institutions, I would have liked some advice from someone with such a thorough understanding.

This is an interesting think piece on contemporary higher education. Three of the chapters originated as lectures at the University of Virginia, but the book does not feel disjointed or thrown-together. The issues addressed include the problem of general education, legitimation within the humanities, the homogeneity of professorial political orientations, interdisciplinarity and the university's resistance to change, particularly with regard to seemingly intractable problems.Menand's approach to the issues is historical and the history which he charts is carefully delineated. The writing is lucid, his positions clear. You may disagree with him on a number of points but you always have a clear argument/narrative with which to disagree. When he faces difficult issues he does not hesitate to offer answers and possible explanations.The chapter on general education is, in my judgment, the best and it could well serve as the starting point for further discussions of the subject or further explorations of the issue by college curriculum committees.If there is an overall flaw it is one common to nearly all of the studies of the history of higher education in America. Historians must give significant attention to elite institutions, particularly institutions whose decisions have been watched and replicated by other institutions. And it is fair to ask `what did Harvard decide?' or `what did Yale do in this case?' since American higher education is very imitative.Therein, however, lies the problem. Institutions may have imitated Harvard, but Harvard is such a special case, such an outlier among the 4,000+ institutions of higher education, that the imitation has proven to be extremely wrongheaded. If, for example, Harvard largely abandons general education it is much less of a problem for Harvard than for its imitators, for Harvard has such deep applicant pools that its prep-school and one-of-a-kind-genius public school matriculants will have come to Harvard with a great deal of foundational knowledge/cultural literacy in hand. Students at less-selective institutions will not enjoy these advantages and may be in significant need of general education coursework. The fact that "we" have decided to do something in a particular way may have proven catastrophic for our students, but not for Harvard's, whose ways "we" have been imitating.

Solid book. Where Menand shines is as a historian of humanities education in the US. The highlights are the first and last chapters. The first chapter provides an excellent history of general education. The last chapter especially, dealing with the Ph.D/ABD glut in academia, should give any prospective academic pause. Overall, a good break from the screeds that masquerade as higher ed. reform books these days.

The book is a treasure trove of information on the evolution and history of university education in the US. On top of that several questions about relevance, and potential issues arising out of the education system are addressed - not in a prescriptive way but in the sense of laying down a map and rules of navigation and allowing the reader to draw conclusions from there.The writing is excellent - not sure if this is to be attributed to the fact that the author is an English professor, or is in spite of it. But it is clear, very well structured, readable and at the same time full of factual, useful information (supported by proper citation and a great bibliography, if one is interested). It is very finely judged lengthwise - the topic would suffer from shortening the book, yet it is also not prone to needless repetition of points already made.The book primarily focuses on the liberal education in the US and provides answers to questions such as the rise and failed promise of interdisciplinary rhetoric (it tends not to progress beyond that in most cases), why most professors think alike (and share political views), the problem of the education system's supply of people with graduate degrees in the non-vocational fields being badly mismatched to the demand (and the consequences thereoff) and also takes a reader interested in the topic on a brief historical tour of the evolution of American higher education, providing good pointers as to why the current system prevailed as well as why it has had such a profound influence on higher education elsewhere.The primary theme throughout the book is the problem of higher education having become more and more geared towards producing professors / academics, rather than writers, critics, historians, etc. And until the route to professorship is not changed, the system is unlikely to rejuvenate itself and become more relevant to today's society.While the book will probably primarily interest academics, university administrators or people engaged in education more broadly, it is easily accessible to a reader with a general interest and I guess many students, on the verge of deciding whether to go down the graduate route will benefit from taking a look, too.