In her critique of fifty comedies, Bernheimer boldly claims that Animal House "changed the face of comedy forever." (112) Though not one of the best comedies, it so perfectly captured the sentiments of the era's youth subculture that it became a "milestone" in movie history. (109) The film took "antiauthoritarianism" to new highs, while at the same time pushing taste to a "new low." (109) This paved the way for an "endless" slate of "tasteless" comedies aimed at the youth market, forever changing the marketing that dictated Hollywood. (109) It was so successful amongst the youth culture because it brought the kind of "crude, rudely irreverent" comedy that was similar to that of improvisation groups and TV sketch comedy that was extremely popular with teenagers at the time. (110) The heroes of the film were identifiable misfits that refused to take college seriously or respect the "repressive forces" than want them to conform. (110) Belushi's character, Bluto, reminded the audience that even if you "goof off" in college, you could still succeed. (110) In fact, the movie was the first to make a "complete mockery" of the college institution. (112)
    This article confirms many theories of other articles, including the anarchist nature of the film, the lowbrow comedy, the misfit unity, and the attack on education. All of this transformed the depiction of college in film from an institution of higher learning to the college stereotype we now know. In addition, Bernheimer claims Animal House changed how college-themed movies were made and marketed in Hollywood. It made filmmakers realize that college-themed movies should be specifically made for and marketed to a youth audience by using the popular "crude" humor (and the six themes from Thomas and Heldenfel's article). As said in Bernheim's book, Animal House launched a series of similar comedies made specifically for its audience.

    Bird's critique against the institution of higher learning aptly begins with the first chapter's title: "The College Mystique." Bird believes a "great majority" of college students are there for almost every reason besides to learn: whether it is because it is the thing to do, because they cannot get a job, because it is the only way their parents will continue to support them, etc. (3) Students are there because they are not needed; no one has anything against them, but no one has anything for them either. (12) As a result, many students are unhappy at college. College is a way for both parents and children to "gracefully" rid themselves of each other. (18) Further, one does not need a reason to go to college because it is an institution. The challenge becomes thinking of reasons for "not going." (22) Bird believes that if students do not want to be at college that there is no way one can expect them to stay for the "good of mankind." (23) All of this can be narrowed down into one sentence of hers: "The simple thesis of this book is that college is good for some people, but it is not good for everybody." (24)   
    Bird's 1975 assault on the necessity of a college education could not have come at a more appropriate time in film. The counterculture of the '60s was adopted by mainstream filmmaking as auteur directors were brought into the studio system. The "college mystique" that Bird attacks is the very image of higher education perpetuated by films before Animal House. The book highlights the fact that the college depicted in earlier films is not only untrue, but may also actually be harmful to those who should not be there. Her thesis is a foundation that the movie builds on, taking it up a level by portraying it in a nonacademic light and by stating that college is not necessary for success for anyone (all the protagonists of the film become successful after college through end credits after getting kicked out).

    Gilliatt's review of Animal House is not so kind. She claims that the movie hurls a vast array of insults at America's educational system. (53) The acting in the film is of the "rolling-eye sort," and the attempted satire of college life is forced upon the audience with "smothered laughs." (54) The movie ignores major aspects of any campus by not including any black undergraduates and ignoring the "intellectually under endowed." (54) The movie is without wit, and its lampooning of college does a poor job because it does not depict any people with a sense of conflicted morality; all of the characters simply disregard all morals. (54) The movie is not merely antiacademic, but if someone did not know what real education was, one would think it "hermetic from the rest of the world to the point of hygienic refrigeration." (54) She believes the film shows "social untruths" and an almost "criminally false idea of the national sense of the comedic." (54)
    This review is a good argument against Animal House being the turning point. Gilliatt does immediately recognize the film's attack on the institution of college, especially the extent to which it does so in a lowbrow fashion. Education takes a brutal beating from which it seems it could never recover. Unlike Rich, however, her analysis is framed in the fact that she does not believe this depiction to be reality. She yearns for viewers to remember that it does not show any of the moral hesitation she assumes all experienced in college. However, her point here can be easily rebutted. It does not matter that Animal House does not accurately portray real college life. The idea that college is a place for academic pursuit by the pure at heart is no longer portrayed in film, even if that may be what it is in reality. Despite all of her criticism, Gilliatt senses the drastic changes Animal House brought to the depiction of higher learning.