A lot of ink has been spilled in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis on the shortcomings of economics as an academic subject. One of the reasons this books jumps out from that wave of writing and commentary is that it is written by a number of economics students who were dissatisfied with their experience during their respective degrees and organised themselves and raised their voices. Good for them. However, this could be one of the reasons I didn't think the book contains a lot of new or unexpected points of criticism (another reason could be that the book is almost 7 years old by now and that I have heard/read most points multiple times elsewhere by now). It's also very a much a negative approach: it describes (again and again) what is wrong with the field of economics but is a bit light on what direction it would need to go in to improve. Economics is too mathematic-y and needs to be more pluralist. Sure. But when asked what kind of new directions etc to be explored more it's the usual collection of marxist and feminist economics etc and it is never really convincingly explained what kind of refreshing insights these (currently indeed fairly niche) fields would provide us with (behavioural economics doesn't get mentioned until the appendix).