Introduction
Excellence without a Soul is a book written by Harry R. Lewis in 2007 which critiques the liberal education system offered by Harvard Universities and other institutions of the Ivy League. The author of the book is a renowned scholar and academic with several decades of experience as a faculty member and dean at Harvard University, which is his alma mater. Being an insider to the educational context in this institution, Lewis has been exposed to the gradual changes that have happened in the field of higher education over the past decades, which triggered his intentions to emphasize the problems with the transforming purpose of universities from upbringing and educational into commercial and research-driven.
Although particularly influenced by the author’s immediate experience of working at the university and observing its changes first-hand, the book was produced after Lewis’ deliberate in-depth research of the past of Harvard University. Indeed, according to the author of the book, this work is a result of a three-year project, during which he researched and reviewed original documents and historical data on curricula, management, and faculty work at Harvard (Lewis, 2007). Moreover, the book contains multiple quotations of renowned individuals whose lives and careers have been connected with Harvard, which indicates that the author integrated external perspectives and opinions into his research. Given the factual background, extensive research, and the author’s credentials, the book is a credible academic source. Overall, the work was published to raise awareness in the target audience of the general public, academics, and decision-makers about the lost purpose of higher education in America. Its importance as a representation of a critical opinion about the commercialization of higher education in the USA is validated by the necessity to unfold the weaknesses of the current system for its improvement.
Summary
The book consists of nine main chapters, an introduction, and a conclusion, in which the author presents a series of structurally developed arguments united by one larger thesis or theme addressing the purpose of higher education in the USA. Indeed, the main theme of the book holds that Harvard, as well as the rest of the higher educational institutions of the Ivy League, fail to educate properly employable, independent, and theoretically and skillfully equipped students because it prioritizes consumerism in students’ learning process. The author presents and effectively supports several important arguments pertaining to the thesis. In particular, the author argues that universities have forgotten their ultimate mission of developing youth into responsible adults and not merely teaching them separate subjects.
In addition, the author claims that too much freedom of discipline choice is given to students to meet their customer expectations, which hinders their expertise due to the omission of seemingly non-interesting but crucially important subjects. Furthermore, the author criticizes faculty work due to its shift from collaborative and interdisciplinary educational work to mere teaching of separate subjects and perfecting research. The curricular critique is based on the historical perspective to demonstrate that the quality and coherence of contemporary education are hindered by commercial goals and not the ultimate developmental and personality-forming results for students.
A substantial part of the book is devoted to the development of an argument about the transformed meaning of excellence, which has become a mere set of quotas and numerical achievements regardless of quality outcomes. Moreover, the author pursues the argument of grading inflation as one of the indicators of pressure on students due to various grading approaches, limited courses, and inadequate teaching methods. In addition, to validate his claims on the decay of moral education at Harvard, the writer critiques athletic programs that overemphasize competition for money instead of prioritizing knowledge acquisition for athletes.
The book concludes that Harvard has lost its initial purpose of guiding students’ educational and developmental needs as future society members, having become merely a brand instead. Universities today are more inclined to meet the requirements of students, who are now the customers of the university as a business entity. The author claims that it is harmful not only to the educational system but to the whole American society to continue reorganizing Harvard into a business-like hierarchical, efficiency-driven organization. He urges the next Harvard president to return the institution’s prior reputation of a well-organized, knowledge-driven academic setting that transforms dependent teenagers into wise and responsible adults.
Economic Theories, Concepts, and Models
Excellence without a Soul is a work particularly influenced by the economic trends that have invaded higher education. To deliver the main thesis and supporting arguments in the book, the author refers to several economic concepts, theories, and models both implicitly and explicitly. Indeed, when criticizing contemporary higher education within the Ivy League, Lewis refers to the concept of competitive advantage. According to the author of the book, “the greater the university, the more intent it is on competitive success in the marketplace of faculty, students, and research money” (Lewis, 2007, p. xiv). However, the achievement of competitive advantage of a university over its rivals in the market should not become the ultimate purpose of the institution’s functioning.
Another important economic feature utilized by the author to deliver his main idea is the concept of value added. The author refers to this concept to redefine it for the educational setting and emphasizes that for businesses and universities, this notion has a different meaning. Namely, Lewis (2007) recalls that “a Princeton professor I know quipped that the fact that my most successful student was a dropout confirmed his theory that Harvard’s value added is negative— the more Harvard education you have, the less far you go in life.” (p. 22). In such a manner, the author claims that high achievements in separate disciplines viewed as valuable by a business do not produce social value for adults who graduate from Harvard or other Ivy League universities when they enter the real world. The concept of value added is inherently connected with another notable economic phenomenon addressed in the book, which is excellence.
Indeed, excellence as the ultimate manifestation of perfect results in any endeavor is central to the reviewed work, which is implied by its title. However, the author repeatedly opposes the difference between business-oriented excellence and educational excellence. In economic terms, performance excellence entails completing quotas, achieving benchmarks, and overcoming competitors, while educational excellence is based on the achievement of a successful identity search (Lewis, 2007). Indeed, the author claims that “if the uniting principle is anything more than excellence at whatever the student chooses to study, […] the attempt to define the core of a college education becomes an institutional identity search” (Lewis, 2007, p. 46). Thus, the use of the economic term ‘performance excellence’ is validated by the author’s concern about the meaning of this term for contemporary educational decision-makers.
Another substantial economic concept utilized in the book for the purposes of illustrating the lost purpose of higher education by the cost of commercialization is branding. Indeed, the author refers to the concept of brand name both explicitly and implicitly throughout the book in order to demonstrate that Harvard is now merely a brand name that is used to attract payable consumers that will contribute to the competitive advantage of the organization (Lewis, 2007). In other words, the use of this economic term helps Lewis (2007) clarify his thesis about the neglected purpose of the university to perform to its historically renowned reputation and not to build a hollow brand without expected values and purpose.
A theory of supply and demand is also addressed in the book from the perspective of the Ivy League universities’ performance shift guided not only by academic curricula but by the demand for educational services. Indeed, the academic states that “with no larger educational ideals to shape the undergraduate experience, decisions affecting students are calculated to satisfy their immediate demands” (Lewis, 2007, p. xi). In such a manner, the supply and demand theory holds that the demand for a particular service or good triggers its supply in response, meaning that a business entity produces exactly what consumers want. However, the reference to this theory in the book is validated by the author’s intention to demonstrate that the true purpose of university education is not to respond to the demands of the students disregarding the expertise of faculty and the overall coherence of the university experience. Instead, higher education should be an independent supplier of high standards that would yield a demand in response to the excellence of faculty, curricula, and overall developmental outcomes of the graduates. Thus, the author’s use of economic concepts and theories allows for building a compelling argument and explaining complex economic processes taking place within the context of the contemporary educational system.
Evidence Evaluation
When reviewing the book with academic credibility, one should focus on the evaluation of the evidential basis presented by the researcher to validate whether the claims are reliable and convincing. For that purpose, the evidence used by Lewis (2007) in Excellence without a Soul is to be evaluated within the context of their comprehensiveness and relevance with regard to readers’ perception. The clarity and reliability of evidence are the cornerstones of the academic credibility of the book.
In particular, in his claims, the author appeals to the readers with in-depth contextual depictions and explanations that help the audience understand the importance of the articulated problem and its relevance in the context of contemporary social life. From my experience of researching and analyzing the state of contemporary American higher education, I might state that when reading the book, I was convinced to believe the urgency of the problem; however, the essence of the issue at hand is not easy to perceive clearly due to the ambiguity of multiple terms used by the author. For example, as stated earlier, Lewis (2007) repeatedly uses the term excellence, but his attitude to this concept is not clearly revealed at once. Based on my knowledge and experience, I might assume that excellence is a positive aspect of educational experiences since it drives successful degree completion and develops students’ strive for improvement. Therefore, at first, it is not completely clear why the author attempts to disregard its importance for Harvard. Nonetheless, the author gradually builds the support for his argument to emphasize the difference between merely academic strive for excellence and its business manifestation, which is an unwanted factor for coherent higher education.
Indeed, the writer presents several well-tailored quotations to exemplify the difference between excellence as viewed by the early presidents of Harvard University and its contemporary decision-makers. In particular, Lewis (2007) quotes President Elliot’s 1869 speech in which he promised (and then fulfilled his promise) to revolutionize education at Harvard with the priority set on educational excellence. In parallel, the author refers to the performance of 2001 President Summers, who failed to preserve Elliot’s legacy. Although Lewis (2007) refers to these historical figures’ contributions to Harvard, he fails to support his evaluations with accurate statistics or other reliable evidence. Thus, the accounts of subjective evaluation of different Harvard presidents’ performances cannot be considered a significantly reliable piece of evidence.
Reference to other countries’ experiences with vocational education and liberal education serves as strong support for the authors’ claim about the blurred distinction between the two types of education in the contemporary US educational system. Indeed, a reader is presented with a commonly neglected difference between vocational education, which provides students with skills necessary to become employed as a specialist in a particular field, and liberal education, which necessitates a coherent, unified development of an intelligent individual with expertise in a multitude of disciplines. Lewis (2007) states that “Harvard portrays employability as antagonistic to the true purposes of a liberal education” (p. 6). To support this claim, the author refers to the opinions of academics and professors without explicitly naming or quoting them, which hinders the reliability and usefulness of the evidence used in the book. Thus, the lack of coverage of a scholarly debate on the topic of vocational and liberal education weakens the academic credibility of Lewis’ (2007) work. A reader is provided with a hint on the problem behind this distinction, which provokes contemplation but does not give well-structured answers.
The strongest evidence the author presents to his readers consists of extensive quotations from speeches, publications, and utterances of historical figures. They include Henry Adams, President Elliot, and others whose accounts of the purpose of Harvard to be an exemplary liberal education institution are illustrated in detail (Lewis, 2007). Long passages of quotes provide credibility to the setting of the problem and help readers understand the context better, which is useful given the overall purpose of the book.
Although such evidence provides a firm background for contrasting the intentions of the forefathers with the failures of contemporaries, it is not followed by sufficient body of evidence illustrating modern-time failures. However, when evaluating the implications of curricula changes across the history of the institution, Lewis (2007) provides a substantial numerical and statistical body of evidence to illustrate how commercialization has shifted the focus from directed education to services provided to students on demand. For example, the author cites Faculty Rosovsky’s change implementation statement validating the need “to use our resources effectively” and “a sense that the undergraduate population has not received its fair share of the recent intellectual additions to our resources” (Lewis, 2007, p. 57). Using this and similar quotes, the author manages to introduce the readers to the historical context and expose them to the gradual changes that have led to the business-oriented model of contemporary management of Harvard.
Overall, as a reader interested in obtaining a compelling answer to the tentative questions concerning the author’s concern about the future of liberal education, one fails to receive enough evidence that would inform the causes of the issue or its solution. Indeed, the book’s examples of the problem manifestation across discipline choices, faculty performance, athletic programs, curricula shaping, and grading illustrate the scope of the issue. However, one expects to understand the explicit implications of excellence without a soul for society (Lewis, 2007). In other words, the urgency of the problem lacks evidential support, as well as the proposed solution is deprived of justification and practice-based articulation.
Critical Review of the Book’s Arguments
From the very beginning of the book and throughout the text, the author maintains a consistent cause-and-effect logic when presenting his arguments. In particular, the larger thesis of deteriorated coherence of Harvard education is delivered through the examples of its manifestations in different domains of university life, both students and faculty. Referring to my experience in researching this topic, I might state that such an approach to structuring the arguments is a strength of the book since it captures the essence of the problem and allows for readers’ comprehension and engagement.
One of the significant strengths of the book is its emphasis on the inevitable and decisive connection between universities and society. The author argues that higher educational institutions’ ultimate purpose is to prepare competent, responsible, and intelligent citizens to ensure the well-being of society. My knowledge of the analyzed problem suggests that this claim is particularly relevant in the context of the modern commercialization of university education and is compatible with the opinions of other scholars investigating this topic. Indeed, Lewis’ (2007) perspectives on the unity of university and society coincide with the ideas presented by Siegel and Leih (2018), who criticize the excessive commercialization of education. In particular, the scholars state that the subject of university’ “importance in public life has long been recognized” (Siegel & Leih, 2018, p. 6). Thus, the big-picture emphasis on the integration of higher education into public life is a strong argument that predetermines the alignment of all the claims presented in the book. By focusing on the inherent influence of university education on the life of ordinary citizens and vice versa, the author manages to conceptualize the overall mission of universities to provide a coherent upbringing and educational service to students.
Another strong aspect of the project is the personality of the author, who depicts his first-hand experiences from the perspective of a competent educator with several decades of working as a faculty member and dean at Harvard College. The insider perspective on the problematic issues within the educational system serves as an advantage since the author has access to facts that might not be otherwise known to the reader. For example, the curriculum decision-making and faculty interaction guidelines characterized from within allow for illustrating to the audience what changes have occurred to the everyday practice of the university education after its commercialization. At the same time, the individual perspective of the author informed by his immediate experiences might be considered a weakness due to the subjectivity and potential bias of Lewis’ (2007) opinions given his position. Indeed, the reliance of the author on his encounters and practice-informed thoughts might contribute to the diminished reliability of the arguments. However, given that the author presents his arguments with the support of not only his personal views but historical documents, official statements, and academic evidence, this weakness might be disregarded.
The lack of an in-depth discussion of interdisciplinary issues at Harvard is a significant weakness of the author’s argument. Indeed, as informed by Holley (2019), the deterioration of interdisciplinarity in contemporary higher education is one of the flawed manifestations of commercialization and a drawback that should be eliminated. Although Lewis (2007) touches on interdisciplinary concern through the perspectives of insufficient academic communication and collaboration caused by universities serving students as businesses serve consumers, this argument lacks depth. Contrary to Lewis’ (2007), Holley’s (2019) scholarly discussion of the problem with interdisciplinarity is based on an explicit example of Klein scholarship; Holley (2019) also presents practical guidance on how to solve the problem using enhanced professional and academic collaborations. Thus, the author of the reviewed book fails to provide an accurate analysis of the problem despite establishing that it is one of the significant concerns, which is why this argument might be considered weak.
Concluding Recommendations
In summation, the review of Lewis’ (2007) book entitled Excellence without a Soul has revealed that the book is a valuable evidence-based critical perspective on the contemporary higher education system of the USA in general and Ivy League universities in particular. The author’s main thesis is that Ivy League universities fail to provide coherent education capable of forming independent, responsible, and wise members of society, shifting toward business excellence and competitive advantage obtainment instead. Using economic concepts of competitive advantage, added value, performance excellence, branding, and the theory of supply and demand, the writer manages to present a variety of manifestations of the flaws in Harvard education.
To support his main thesis, the author presents compelling arguments pertaining to the coherence of faculty work, the competition-based academic performance of students, the flawed freedom of discipline choice, and impaired interdisciplinary ties and communication within the institutions. The book’s strengths are related to its in-depth evidential basis, informed by extensive research of documents, historical events, and statements and opinions of renowned academics. In addition, the work is characterized by a strong theoretical argument for the enhancement of the ultimate purpose of universities to serve the well-being of societies by preparing wise and responsible individuals with defined identities.
At the same time, the reviewed project is characterized by significant weaknesses, which are recommended to be addressed to make this work more credible and applicable for change implementation. Namely, the author fails to identify the initial cause and responsible parties for the problem with the contemporary educational system, as well as does not provide enough guidance on how to tackle this problem within a complex system of economic, political, social, and institutional factors. Moreover, the author does not adequately address the potential solutions to the improvement of interdisciplinary work in higher education institutions despite acknowledging it as one of the core issues. Thus, it is recommended to deepen the practical aspect of the book by integrating more accurate guidance on possible solutions that would engage not only the agency as an illusionary stakeholder but specific interventions and programs that would help return Harvard to its coherence, independence, and value.
References
Holley, K. A. (2019). Learning from Klein: Examining current interdisciplinary practices within US higher education. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 37(2), 17-32.
Lewis, H. R. (2007). Excellence without a soul: Does liberal education have a future? Public Affairs.
Siegel, D. S., & Leih, S. (2018). Strategic management theory and universities: An overview of the Special Issue. Strategic Organization, 16(1), 6-11. Web.