Zealous defenders of the higher-education establishment often argue that the case those of us who think that higher ed has been oversold make is weak and unpersuasive, consisting merely of some anecdotes and poorly researched studies. I think the case is far stronger than that, but where should the burden of proof lie, anyway? Should it be up to skeptics to prove that higher ed frequently doesn’t work, or up to its advocates to show that it does? In this new SeeThru post, I argue that the burden of proof rests on those who contend that higher ed is doing a good educational job, and that they have hardly even tried to do so.