Three expert authors—two are past college/university presidents—have produced an important and insightful analysis of a major issue for contemporary America. They clearly describe the worrisome stagnation in rates of college completion and the imbalance in completion rates that particularly impact African American and Hispanic men, along with low-income students. The study builds on a major effort collecting and analyzing extensive new data sets, as well as careful reading of related studies. The authors effectively explain the seriousness of the issue; their new approach, which identifies the causative factors; and their recommendations for improving the situation, which would require attention and resources but is still feasible. The focus here is on public universities, both highly selective and less selective, since these institutions educate the greatest proportion of students. VERDICT The authors succeed in portraying the problem and its solutions in a dense, evidence-based study, a complex yet well-structured and readable work that is essential for those interested in higher education and public policy.

Garland (president, emeritus, Miami University of Ohio) asserts that a misguided business model for public universities—he was a teacher and administrator at Ohio State for many years—has led to increasing tuition and declining quality. Garland explains the damaging impact of an unpredictable and uncompetitive system of state appropriations and also shows that faculty values and the character of academic culture get in the way of cost-effective management and the identification of priorities. Most faculty are dedicated and hardworking, but campus attitudes have led to a defensiveness that wastes resources, resists change, and undermines the academic excellence that students and society overall need. VERDICT While Garland's recommended change in tuition policy may not work throughout the system, his clearly expressed and hardheaded analysis provide a valuable perspective for both the general reader and public officials.

Like Charles Muscatine's Fixing College Education, below, this work examines issues related to the curriculum and the approach of the faculty; unlike Muscatine, Menand (English, Harvard; staff writer, The New Yorker) focuses on selective colleges and universities and especially on the humanities, explaining the importance of general education for all undergraduates, even though they may be more interested in career preparation than ideas. He links the difficulties for universities in promoting general education to tensions in academic careers emerging from faculty selection and training, uncertainties about disciplinary and interdisciplinary frameworks, and the strong frustrations in current academic career patterns. Menand puts these issues in a historical perspective in a thoughtful and graceful style but offers little hope that the structure of academic knowledge production and dissemination will support reforms. VERDICT An important, if traditional, view on the content of higher education. [See Prepub Alert, LJ 4/1/09.]

Muscatine (English, emeritus, Univ. of California, Berkeley), an active participant in the movement for reform in American higher education, starts with a blunt accusation: "the teaching and learning that go on in our colleges are actually not very good at all." He has many ideas for improvements, focused on getting away from big classes, memorization of facts, and multiple-choice exams and replacing ineffective approaches and curriculum with small group discussions that put students at the center and enable them to take responsibility for their own learning. He knows, citing his own experience and other models, that this change will not take place without confronting college faculty, transforming graduate training, and moving away from measuring professorial quality by research instead of teaching. VERDICT Although Muscatine's optimism is not totally convincing, his idealistic hopes for change and his easy conversational style make this an appealing and valuable perspective.

Tuchman (sociology, Univ. of Connecticut) presents Wannabe U, pseudonym for a real, mid-sized, second-tier public university in the Northeast, as an illustration of the changes taking place in American higher education in the 21st century. Keeping the institution and her numerous faculty and administrative informants anonymous, she links the administrative centralization in the university to growing corporatism in American society. When the university president calls for "transformation" of the university, he refers to an uneasy mix of increased accountability and growing focus on revenue, along with a confusing insistence that excellent teaching, productive research, and increased public service are all priorities. VERDICT Tuchman's focus on a specific institution is engaging, but her integration of her observations with scholarship in sociology and organization theory creates uncertainty about how universities should evolve. An interested reader might gain clearer understanding from Jame's C. Garland's Saving Alma Mater, above.