Handels maktelitens skola

The book is largely described as interesting and thought-provoking, offering a valuable source of information, particularly concerning the founding and historical context of the educational institution it examines. Reviewers found it informative and some praised its ability to present a multifaceted picture without succumbing to either idealization or outright condemnation. Despite some reservations, it is generally considered worth reading, with some finding its insights inspiring.

However, significant criticisms are raised regarding the book's methodology and presentation. Many reviewers found it overly academic, wordy, and at times redundant, suggesting it could have been considerably shorter without losing content. The author is accused of a clear bias, with some feeling the book is a one-sided attack rather than a balanced analysis, and that the author deliberately seeks faults. The research methods are heavily criticized as insufficient for a scholarly work, relying too much on hand-picked quotes, PR material, and newspaper articles without proper quantification or consideration of diverse perspectives. Important topics are reportedly treated superficially, some arguments are deemed forced, and the book often fails to explore counterarguments. This leads to an impression that the author had a predetermined thesis and sought only to confirm it, rather than conducting an open-minded inquiry, and one reviewer noted unresolved accusations of factual inaccuracies.

Ultimately, the book presents a mixed bag for readers. While it can serve as a useful source of information and spark thought on the role of an elite institution, its impact is diminished by persistent concerns about its academic rigor, perceived bias, and methodological shortcomings. It would likely appeal to readers interested in critical perspectives on education, elite institutions, and power dynamics, especially those seeking an overview of the specific school's history. However, readers expecting a deeply balanced, rigorously researched, and objective sociological study might find it falls short due to its perceived one-sidedness and lack of comprehensive analytical depth.