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).

  In his book Celluloid Ivy, Hinton explores Hollywood's depiction of higher education in film from the 1960s to the 1990s. Hinton cites two specific reasons why films placed a large value on college: it has inherent worth as an end to itself or is a means to an end, specifically a gateway to economic success and improvement upon the previous generation's social status. (30-31) Many films presenting both arguments were made during the '60s, a period Hinton calls the "golden years" of American higher education in film. (113) Though movie parents continued to hang on to the education myth, films released later in the decade like The Graduate (1967) began to depict young people as ambiguous towards the value of college. (33) Yet, it took the outright in your face rejection of the education myth in Animal House to reach higher education's "nadir" in film. (44) Hinton notes that none of the students in the movie seem to be at Farber College for academic reasons; they attend because of "family expectations, social opportunities, and fun games." (50) Hinton believes the movie's message at its worst demonstrates that college is irrelevant to later success in life, and at its best shows that it is not necessary. (48) Not only do academics suffer, but the Greek system takes a beating that it has never recovered from as well; the rebel fraternity has been the main Greek portrayal ever since. (151)
    This book is critical to proving the thesis that Animal House represented the turning point of the depiction of college in film. It supports the argument that film before Animal House portrayed college in a mostly positive light, and the little criticism was ambiguous at its worst. Animal House was the first film to attack college outright, showing its "crudeness and vulgarity in their extremes." The movie became a "cultural phenomenon" and changed the portrayal of college in film forever. (46)