Dave Tomar

Back when Mr. Tomar was still writing under the pseudonym "Ed Dante", I read the article he wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education and nodded knowingly throughout. Students who could barely articulate a thought, yet still passing their classes? Check. Students wantonly spending their money and somehow earning a degree? Check.

I remember most vividly the comments, ranging from disbelief and claims that Tomar (Dante, then) was outrageously exaggerating the poor quality of writing exhibited by his clients to arrogant professors assuring him that he would not be able to pass their class, surely. I even read a few that speculated that someone who is obviously as capable as Tomar would surely not be doing grunt work for pittance, so it must be some sort of joke or hoax.

The last is, tangentially, what Tomar is addressing. Apparently those souls have bought into the fiction that being smart and prodigious at college necessarily leads to a cushy job, apparently having bought wholesale into the scam that Tomar uncovers in his book.

The beginning reveals Tomar's fraught relationship with his alma mater, particularly the parking division, the bete noir of many a college student. Though he claims to not be resentful anymore, it is hard to take him at his word when the rage boils off the page. And I sympathize. After reading his article, I remember writing a similar, scathing indictment of the promises made to me that college was the only way to get ahead, that afterward I would be able to find a job. Instead, I saw students whose parents paid for everything skate by with little to no effort; they would later land jobs at their parent's firms. Meanwhile, I poured my heart and soul into college, had a 4.0 as a first generation college student, and ate half a pack of Ramen for breakfast and the rest for dinner. I graduated with no cushy job, but plenty of debt to repay.

Eventually, of course, I did find a job, and most of that resentment has become aged, if not dimmed, much like Tomar's apparently has. I see many people angry at his justifications, but I sympathize - even empathize - with him. Because it feels like the system is rigged from the start. We are told time and time again that being smart will help us get ahead; that pulling a 4.0 will get us an interview, that our intelligence will shine in a job*, and we will eventually pull ahead of the people who used to shove us into lockers (metaphorically, one hopes). Yet instead, we see that people whose parents pay for everything can pass through with no problems and still get ahead, so our intelligence is worthless - unless we monetize it ourselves, as Tomar did, by writing papers. I read comments about how college is "what you put into it", and that's true; in the end, these clients are only cheating themselves, but I imagine many of them are doing just fine, which is maddening. It's why people believe in a Just World syndrome, because the alternative is that we inhabit a Kafkaesque world where the smart people are laden with student debt while idiots who cheat get the corner office. Yes, he might be justifying, but it's hard not to when faced with an 8.5% interest rate on thousands of dollars worth of loans. Though the way he wrote it smacks of "It's an unfair world, so we should all be unfair", I don't think that's what he was really saying. I think he was saying that it is an absurd world, one where we are all raised on the fairytale of the noble prince or the clever princess who will succeed, and in the end, the villain gets the castle.

The rest of the book details the particularly stressful line of work he was in, pulling twenty- or sometimes twenty-four hour days to make deadlines, taking on more work than humanly possible, and writing on every subject known to man. He reveals how snippets of information here and there would come together in a full paper; the mind-boggling entitlement of his customers; and the dizzying amount of work he put in to meet the deadline for his monthly pay.

Unfortunately, not much can be said past that. Tomar's strength is clearly in research. With subtle grace, he peppers his book with quotes and research backing up the idea that college as the "gateway to a better life" is becoming nothing more than an unsustainable scam, a bubble destined to pop as surely as mortgages did. When he relates his friend's experiences working for a for-profit school and details their shady practices, he shines. When he talks about his work, he tends to be repetitive. In a way, that might reflect how it feels to pound out paper after paper, no matter how myriad the subject matter, but repetition is hardly a page-turner.

The other problem is that he is too pushy with his writing, too upfront. He blames "cockpit moms" and "this generation" for being too coddled, but there are other, equally valid conclusions for the existence of his line of work. A dry passage shows this tendency even in his writing:

"Fortunately, I don't have to. According to the blog Zero Hedge, Education Finance Council president Vince Sampson is so concerned about the plight of recent and upcoming graduates that he told a panel at a global finance and investment conference in Miami in October 2011 'that lenders are no longer pushing loans to people who can't afford them.'

Well, that is downright responsible, isn't it?" (Tomar 62).

Unfortunately, he does not let it stand, but has to continue, "Wait. Come again. 'No longer pushing loans to people who can't afford them'?" (Tomar 62).

His wit is clear, but often shrouded in his need to "explain the joke" rather than trusting in his own writing, and ultimately, the reader.

That said, he managed to gracefully express a fact that has eluded so many people when discussing the Internet and its implications: "There is indeed a generational divide where the Internet is concerned. But it has less to do with who uses the Internet than with how we are using it... But the difficulty we're experiencing in harnessing the Internet for the purposes of education is not about access or interest or the fact that your great-aunt Sally knows how to attach photographs to emails. Rather, we're experiencing a paradigm shift in the cultural treatment of intellectual property, and this shift is a direct consequence of how our generations variously use the Web" (Tomar 85).

Incidentally, see what I mean about his strength being in academic writing?

The conclusion felt like it verged on epiphany, but was muddled - he clearly had some life-changing thought, but there was no satisfactory reveal. It seems like he quit, or perhaps decided to write this book, but it's unclear.

The book reminded me of Waiter Rant, wherein people become fascinated by a subject written by somebody, and the person believes that people are fascinated by them. I really could not care less about how high people are writing papers for another person, I am more interested in the idea of writing papers for other people. As a framing for an indictment of higher education, it works well and he does not become insufferable, but it does feel like it is lacking the substance of his much shorter article, "The Shadow Scholar".

Overall, an enjoyable read, but not a stellar one.

*Obviously intelligence is not the only thing worthy of getting a job. And honestly, as much as Tomar talks about doing drugs, etc., I seriously doubt his work ethic. Some would argue that pulling twenty-hour days is an example, but sometimes, just being able to do the drudge, repetitive work is more compelling a case for work ethic than pulling a last-minute save. This is more from personal experience, as I'm not unreasonable deficient in social graces, work ethics, or playing the game when necessary.… (más)

I loved the original Shadow Scholar article when I read it a couple of years ago. It was well-written and fascinating. Here was a guy making a living writing papers for other people—to put it more bluntly, helping students cheat their way through school—and he offered an inside look at a world that many of us had never seen before. I wanted to read more about it, so I was thrilled when I found out that he had a full-length book coming out; it was probably my most highly-anticipated read of the year.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be a bit of a let-down. The two works are completely different in tone, for starters. The article is hard-hitting and polished, while the book feels a lot rougher, both in its argumentation and in its language.

There are certainly lots of thought-provoking ideas here, but as the book progressed, it increasingly turned into a self-indulgent personal history that was only tangentially related to the central issue. We hear lots and lots--and lots more--about how Tomar was working unsustainably hard to produce so many papers and make a living. He reached the point of burnout and was fired from multiple essay-writing companies. This is all well and good, except that it eventually becomes clear that these problems were just a matter of his time management skills and didn’t necessarily result from the nature of the job. He took on too many assignments, he barely slept, and he used a lot of drugs to get through it all (and for fun on many other occasions). This might be partially understandable if he were working for minimum wage and honestly struggling to get by—but the few times when he mentions his pay and rate of production, he’s making $45-$60 per hour. The numbers just didn’t compute for me, even taking into account that the summer months were much slower. And if the point isn’t to understand the job itself, but only to understand Tomar’s personal issues, then the book suddenly becomes a whole lot less interesting.

By the end of it, I was just tired of hearing about Tomar’s life, because it was pretty boring. I wanted to read about the work that he was doing, his communications with his clients, and the problems facing the post-secondary education system more broadly. And all of those topics are present. They’re just diluted by largely irrelevant pages about Tomar’s love life, his social activities, and other similar details. I could forgive him for the fact that his position isn’t always carefully argued—for example, he asserts that professors hate Wikipedia because it eliminates their monopoly on information, with no reference at all to the fact that Wikipedia prioritizes common statements over accurate ones—because there’s still some value in raising controversial and thought-provoking points. The tedium, though, really detracted from the reading experience, especially towards the end of the book. It took me much longer than expected to get through it. I still think this is a worthwhile read, but I wouldn’t approach it with the highest of expectations.… (más)

ARC provided by NetGalley

Almost two years ago “Ed Dante” wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education on his experiences writing for a paper mill. His article created a wave of conversation across academia as we read his story of how he wrote assignments not only for undergraduates, but Master’s and PhD level students in all fields as well. And just how little and poorly prepared many of these students were. And now Ed is back, under his real name of Dave Tomar, he shares his story of how he got into writing papers for his fellow students at Rutgers University to his final assignment of writing a Dissertation.

Dave’s tale alternates between autobiographical and a harsh condemnation upon the higher education system that produces students that can’t write their own assignments and are all too willing to pay someone else to do them. Dave provides details, such as emails exchanged between the parties, that show just how poorly they can spell and provides anecdotes from conversations exchanged with parties as to why they aren’t doing the assignments themselves. He shines a particularly harsh light upon Rutgers University and how it failed not only to provide him with a worthwhile education, but other students as well. Dave relates how these experiences followed him throughout his career and the trends that he sees at other universities as well. This unique tale raises questions, much like the original article, that still need to be addressed and answered. Such as, are we pushing too many students towards college without grounding? Are we providing the right resources and focus so that students can succeed in their college experience?

Where the book falters, at least for me, is that Dave often gets long winded, often providing descriptions of what he thinks students look like based upon their email. Or being overly harsh upon his own educational experience and his attempts to show that school hasn’t improved, such as how long it took the parking service to email him back with information about how they spend money. Or where he describes having pot under his fingernails for job interviews. It’s these types of points that will cause some readers to ignore the valid points Dave is bringing up in his book and write him off as nobody or a whiner, which is a shame.

Overall, even with the deviations, this is still a book that folks in higher education should read. I give the book 3.5 out of 5 stars.… (más)