Astrology is real. It exists. It isn't a fake anything. The only intelligent question is this: does it work? That question is so intelligent, not one skeptic on YA has every bothered to ask it.
From this link: https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/index.files/astrolog.htm
"The houses are arbitrary divisions of the sky into 12 sectors, vaguely like orange slices, with the eastern edge of the first house usually aligned with local sunrise, in order to provide yet more tables with more individual characteristics to be looked up. Astrological lore has put forward over the past 2000 years many different (about 50!) house systems, and most astrologers are dimly aware of at least 20 completely different systems"
One example of total ignorance and frankly chosen as typical of the poor writing skills. At best this is a poorly researched undergraduate essay. More likely it is high school level.
For example none of the house systems are "arbitrary." They are mathematically produced constructs each having its own rationale. All house systems, quadrant and non-quadrant, produce the same ASC and MC, i.e. the angles are always the same regardless of system. The differences in the quadrant systems are entirely with the intermediate cusps and they rarely, if ever, vary by more than a few degrees of arc. The only times this produces a conflict is when within those few degrees the sign on the changes changes.
Let's look at the above more closely:
"eastern edge of the first house usually aligned with local sunrise, in order to provide yet more tables with more individual characteristics to be looked up"
Stupid beyond belief. The eastern horizon is a mathematically determined point (90 degrees from the Zenith of the observer) It is the point of the ascendant, and yes genius, the Sun rises on the eastern horizon. But the author claims this is only done to provide more "tables with more individual characteristics to be looked up." Hilarious. This barely makes sense. determining the MC is done before the ASC and from that the house cusps are divided. Mathematical tables don't provide "individual characteristics." That's how mathematicians figured out where things were. Computers didn't always exist, duh. He doesn't' mean "tables" he means "cookbook astrology texts," and puts the cart before the horse by implying the books were written before the math. He seems to believe ancient astrologers used Linda Goodman's "Star Signs." Or maybe he means, someone once said, "Hey I know, let's make houses so we can write the texts so people can look up more stuff." You make this stuff up. PS Houses weren't originally called "houses" they were called "places," which is a bit more accurate. I think the etymology goes this way" the Greek word for "place" became the English word "domicile" and domicile was changed, by usage to "house." Each place represented an area of life.
Elsewhere he refers to "the oldest horoscope" as dating to 410 BC. For our purposes, I'll take his word for it. However I think it was Otto Neugebauer, in his scholarly "Greek Hososcopes" (Neugebauer & Van Hoesen, 1959) noted that the mathematics necessary to calculate the ASC didn't exist until about the first century BC. Therefore whatever it is that was found in 410 BC isn't a true horoscope. It is probably a cuneiform of planets in signs sans degrees. The curious should check the book. The word "horoscope" comes from the Greek horos (hour) socpus (watcher) or watcher of the hour; in other words the ASC. I could go on but this piece awful.
The author of this frankly nonsensical junk wouldn't understand a single word of what I wrote above, but it doesn't matter. As Big Brother said, "Ignorance is strength." That is the millennial motto.
I would have flunked the guy.
EDIT: I just found out this was actually written by a professor. I would yank my kid from that school in a heartbeat. It contains not a single footnote or bibliography - only a list of suggested reading all written by like mined people. There is nothing in this piece that indicates he did any research at all Instead he relies on people who think like he does. Scholarship took a hit the day he put this up.