What do you think?
Rate this book
“Whatever It Is, I’m Against It”: Resistance to Change in Higher Education
An invigorating work that identifies obstructions to transformative change in higher education and offers paths to break through.
In “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It,” president emeritus of Macalester College Brian Rosenberg draws on decades of higher education experience to expose the entrenched structures, practices, and cultures that inhibit meaningful postsecondary reform, even as institutions face serious challenges to their financial and educational models. A lively insider’s account, the book pinpoints factors that hinder the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to be creative and entrepreneurial amid calls to improve affordability, access, and equity for students.
Through pithy personal stories of divisive town hall meetings, multiyear college governance battles, and attempts at curricular reform, Rosenberg illustrates internal and external dynamics that impede institutional evolution. Pressures such as declining enrollment, escalating costs, and an oversupply of PhDs in academia have long signaled a grave need for reform within a profession that, as Rosenberg ruefully acknowledges, lacks organizational flexibility, depends greatly on reputation and ranking, and retains traditions, from the academic calendar to grading systems, that have remained essentially the same for decades.
Rosenberg looks outside the U.S. system to find possible antidotes in innovative higher education models such as student-centered and experiential learning approaches. This thought-provoking work offers ample evidence for presidents, chancellors, deans, provosts, and faculty to consider as they plan their missions to achieve institutional transformation.
In “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It,” president emeritus of Macalester College Brian Rosenberg draws on decades of higher education experience to expose the entrenched structures, practices, and cultures that inhibit meaningful postsecondary reform, even as institutions face serious challenges to their financial and educational models. A lively insider’s account, the book pinpoints factors that hinder the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to be creative and entrepreneurial amid calls to improve affordability, access, and equity for students.
Through pithy personal stories of divisive town hall meetings, multiyear college governance battles, and attempts at curricular reform, Rosenberg illustrates internal and external dynamics that impede institutional evolution. Pressures such as declining enrollment, escalating costs, and an oversupply of PhDs in academia have long signaled a grave need for reform within a profession that, as Rosenberg ruefully acknowledges, lacks organizational flexibility, depends greatly on reputation and ranking, and retains traditions, from the academic calendar to grading systems, that have remained essentially the same for decades.
Rosenberg looks outside the U.S. system to find possible antidotes in innovative higher education models such as student-centered and experiential learning approaches. This thought-provoking work offers ample evidence for presidents, chancellors, deans, provosts, and faculty to consider as they plan their missions to achieve institutional transformation.
224 pages, Paperback
Published September 26, 2023
97 people are currently reading
573 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
February 29, 2024
If I had $3610 I wanted to get rid of quickly, I'd buy a hundred copies of this book and gift them to key figures associated with the University Near Here: the president, trustees, appropriate legislators, department chairs, etc. (Maybe with instructions on what parts would be better ignored.)
The author, Brian Rosenberg, was a longtime president of Macalester College, out in St. Paul, Minnesota, and his experiences there qualify him for commentary on the challenges faced by colleges in an era of declining enrollment (and, I'd add, increasing irrelevance). The book's title, of course, is taken from the song sung by President Wagstaff (Groucho Marx) in the classic movie Horse Feathers. (You can see the movie clip here, you're welcome).
The book's overall argument is summed up in a quote I once heard (and unfortunately can't find anymore) to the effect that the political leanings of college faculties are heavily to the left; but when it comes to the governance of their own institutions, they become extremely conservative. Innovation is resisted, producing stasis in the face of crisis. And a system that fails a significant fraction of its customers/students, but saddles them with (you may have heard) piles of debt.
Rosenberg tells his story with punchy prose and humor (and, occasionally, a taste of bitterness). On lecturing:
Consider, for example, the lecture, "the style of teaching that has ruled universities for 600 years." 600 years ago, barbers were still performing surgery. Scott Freeman […] traces the history of the lecture back even further to 1050, when universities were founded in Western Europe and when barbers were just starting to perform surgery.
Or:
The largest and most influential universities in the United States combine undergraduate and graduate teaching with research institutes, hospital systems, professional schools, semiprofessional sports teams, major real estate holdings, and who knows what else. In some sense Harvard is like Pfizer with a football team, bringing together under the same brand multiple activities that have little or nothing to do with one another.
Another telling point: US News and World Report started ranking colleges in 1983. Top five then: Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley. Their latest top five: Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale.
Contrast this with the Fortune 500. In 1983, their top five were: Exxon, GM, Mobil, Texaco, and Ford. The most recent: Walmart, Amazon, Exxon Mobil, Apple, and United Health Group.
Whatever their faults, private companies prosper via innovation and competition, and the result is perpetual churn. Universities do not. Rosenberg notes that the incentives are all wrong for them; they have no reason to experiment. As Rosenberg notes, the odds of success are low, the price of trying is high. UNH is never going to vault into the US News top five, and (unless something very unexpected happens) Harvard is never going to leave.
Another quote:
Regardless of the fact that nearly every presidential job description and nearly every presidential search committee speaks to the desire of a "change agent," the truth is that an actual change agent is something that only the most desperate college communities want—and even the desperate ones are not sure about it.
Rosenberg's great on his theme… and, unfortunately, awful when he strays off it. His discussion of faculty tenure (another barrier to reform) wanders into "academic freedom"… and then falls into the pit of First Amendment issues. According to Rosenberg, all that free expression stuff can be "the right simply to act like a jerk." His footnoted "good example" of that is Stuart Reges, a computer science facule at the University of Washington. When encouraged by the unversity administration to include a "Native American land acknowledgement" on his syllabus, he went this way:
I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.
As you can imagine, the excrement hit the air circulation device. It escalated into a legal issue, and I encourage you to read the discussion at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) site. Make your own call about whether Rosenberg is being fair or accurate about this being a case of "the right simply to act like a jerk."
That caused me to look up Macalester College on FIRE's Free Speech Rankings. It is in position #211, with a "Below Average" speech climate. Reader, that's not far from the bottom (currently occupied by Harvard, at #248).
Rosenberg also takes a number of drive-by swipes at various conservatives/libertarians. "Drive-by" in the sense that they don't contibute anything to his overall thesis, and seem to serve mainly as signals to his (presumably leftist Democrat) tribe: "Don't worry, I'm not one of them, I'm one of you."
So: ignore that, and the book's pretty good. In the final chapter he outlines possibilities for reform, identifying six "long-standing and widespread assumptions" about higher ed: (1) "The faculty are the university." (2) "Higher education is a meritocracy." (3) "The university stands 'at a slight angle to the world.'" (4) "Students need a major." (5) "Offer lots of different stuff." (6) "Higher education can't change."
It probably has to change.
October 28, 2023
An insightful look at why higher education is so slow to change from the former president of Macalester College. I particularly appreciated the chapters on shared governance and tenure. An engaging read.
February 6, 2025
The book is worth reading as a way to examine the academy with fresh eyes. Ironically, it comes from someone who has spent his whole professional life inside it.
Each chapter identifies some sanctified element of higher education and examines how it can restrict innovation. The author is not out to say there's nothing good about the university, rather that it is so resistant to innovation that it can no longer tell the good from the bad.
While the authorial voice is very present and active, Rosenberg also tries to demonstrate his sourcing very explicitly. He's not coming up with this stuff out of nowhere. You may find at times though that it becomes a more personal narrative than you'd expect, but the author typically wraps it back around to the general.
Ultimately, he's critiquing with love and highlighting the way that some defenses of the status quo are just as detached from reality as he'll be accused of being. In this way, the book is most useful in allowing those of us who spend a lot of time in college to ask questions we didn't think to ask before. There are lots of "aha" moments which call for further inquiry; it's the kind of book that makes you want to ask new questions.
The book is mostly descriptive and critical. That's fine, really, and I think it serves an important purpose just by doing that. But it's hard to sell a social science text that doesn't say "so what" at the end. I think Rosenberg's conclusions point in an interesting direction, but realistically they are more of a gesture than an answer. He spends six chapters saying "here are some things that aren't great." With only a single chapter available to wrap it up, it's hard to say much more than "don't do those things."
He does illustrate by example, highlighting a couple institutions which defy the norms described in the rest of the book. Even then, though, the point is mostly illustrated in the negative. The innovative colleges of the future, according to the author, must neither be vain attempts at comprehensiveness nor half-measure, pre-packaged online programs. Okay, great, but that still mostly tells us what they aren't.. They should be focused, missional, experiential, and they probably shouldn't have tenure. Okay, great, but those are still more ambiguous ideas that they seem to be.
The issue is that everyone knows higher ed, as a broad industry, will need to change. Frankly, it will change whether people like it or not, if only via institutional closure. But defining what it should change "to" and under which principles is so complicated a question that it can't be tacked on to a descriptive text. I don't blame the author for doing so because you need to wrap up somehow, and I do think he's gesturing in the right direction. Realistically, I shouldn't expect Rosenberg to provide answers he does not claim to have.
The book will make you ask questions. You may be frustrated with how few answers to those questions there are. But they're still worth asking.
Each chapter identifies some sanctified element of higher education and examines how it can restrict innovation. The author is not out to say there's nothing good about the university, rather that it is so resistant to innovation that it can no longer tell the good from the bad.
While the authorial voice is very present and active, Rosenberg also tries to demonstrate his sourcing very explicitly. He's not coming up with this stuff out of nowhere. You may find at times though that it becomes a more personal narrative than you'd expect, but the author typically wraps it back around to the general.
Ultimately, he's critiquing with love and highlighting the way that some defenses of the status quo are just as detached from reality as he'll be accused of being. In this way, the book is most useful in allowing those of us who spend a lot of time in college to ask questions we didn't think to ask before. There are lots of "aha" moments which call for further inquiry; it's the kind of book that makes you want to ask new questions.
The book is mostly descriptive and critical. That's fine, really, and I think it serves an important purpose just by doing that. But it's hard to sell a social science text that doesn't say "so what" at the end. I think Rosenberg's conclusions point in an interesting direction, but realistically they are more of a gesture than an answer. He spends six chapters saying "here are some things that aren't great." With only a single chapter available to wrap it up, it's hard to say much more than "don't do those things."
He does illustrate by example, highlighting a couple institutions which defy the norms described in the rest of the book. Even then, though, the point is mostly illustrated in the negative. The innovative colleges of the future, according to the author, must neither be vain attempts at comprehensiveness nor half-measure, pre-packaged online programs. Okay, great, but that still mostly tells us what they aren't.. They should be focused, missional, experiential, and they probably shouldn't have tenure. Okay, great, but those are still more ambiguous ideas that they seem to be.
The issue is that everyone knows higher ed, as a broad industry, will need to change. Frankly, it will change whether people like it or not, if only via institutional closure. But defining what it should change "to" and under which principles is so complicated a question that it can't be tacked on to a descriptive text. I don't blame the author for doing so because you need to wrap up somehow, and I do think he's gesturing in the right direction. Realistically, I shouldn't expect Rosenberg to provide answers he does not claim to have.
The book will make you ask questions. You may be frustrated with how few answers to those questions there are. But they're still worth asking.
April 17, 2024
great textbook. my grad students really appreciated it.
January 14, 2024
Generically speaking, this is a fascinating book. It's part sober stock-taking of the state of higher ed in the U.S., a mature and flourishing genre to which Rosenberg doesn't add much that is new, part academic autobiography, and part self-help for the poor and beleaguered university president.
Rosenberg's foundational assumption is that higher education is too inert. Institutions, by definition, are conservative and are built to last. The U.S. vastly overbuilt capacity and, due to demographic and technological changes, there are too many PhDs, too many lecture halls, too many schools. These changes, Rosenberg argues, are going to mean the end for a lot of smaller and precariously funded places since demand for the traditional liberal arts college experience is plummeting. So far, so familiar. Rosenberg, after a distinguished but, according to him, not very impactful 17-year run as president of Macalester, would love for university presidents to operate like CEOs: cut programs, fire faculty (especially all those useless humanists), specialize schools, teach more with fewer people, make budgets lean and mean. The fact that Rosenberg himself was trained as a Victorianist (like yours truly), a formerly prestigious specialization that is now pretty much useless on the job market and in course catalogs, makes Rosenberg's turn from traditional English prof to capitalist administrator all the more striking. Or maybe not--see below.
As Rosenberg concedes, maybe higher ed is resistant to change because the way it’s done--classrooms, liberal arts mission, majors, student loans--is in fact the best setup for learning under current societal conditions. He is doubtful about it, though. Instead, Rosenberg favors the universities-must-survive-market-pressures stance and, working through issues like shared governance and tenure, rehearses his argument throughout. All the while, Rosenberg is nuanced, funny, and oh-so-aware of institutional hierarchies. To build his credibility, he lets us know at the beginning that he has was a Harvard job finalist--congrats? He tells us this so we understand he's no lefty ideologue; the hierarchies are fine by him.
Though he'd likely disagree with me, Rosenberg strikes me as a conservative in the Victorian sense: He assumes that "free"-market capitalism is the only game in town (because it always has been); he prioritizes institutional flexibility over long-term stability and caution (never mind that one of the points of a university is for societies to have a space that keeps thinking about ways of doing things that don't derive from capitalist tenets); and he cherishes the liberal subject (himself) as the protagonist of the story of higher ed. That's why the book reads like it's academia's Bildungsroman. We're stuck in the nineteenth century with Rosenberg which is why I find it unforgivable that he dunks on his own book on Little Dorrit at one point. Yes, FFS, your book was as useful to society as your classroom teaching or your various leadership roles.
Personally, I would argue that universities, like health care, should be exempt from the consumer model, a notion that Rosenberg dismisses, bitterly, several times, as insufficiently pragmatic. I get it. Still, after finishing the book and sitting with it for a while, I would observe that Rosenberg is limited by assuming that the current way the funding structure operates is the only way to do it. The money is there—tax the rich. Maybe college presidents should be more political in agitating their state legislatures for tax increases on corporations and the super-wealthy so that extant infrastructures can be maintained or responsibly built back? If we want higher ed to be a public good that is in fact funded as a public (and not private) good, then let's get to it. Not so Rosenberg, though, who just wants disruption seemingly for disruption's pleasure's sake so that all those underfunded places can finally get in the black, college presidents receive the deference to which they're entitled, and those pesky English profs, forced to retrain as they join the precariat, finally get a dose of what the world is really like.
Anyways, this was a worthwhile read though I disagree with Rosenberg on almost everything.
Rosenberg's foundational assumption is that higher education is too inert. Institutions, by definition, are conservative and are built to last. The U.S. vastly overbuilt capacity and, due to demographic and technological changes, there are too many PhDs, too many lecture halls, too many schools. These changes, Rosenberg argues, are going to mean the end for a lot of smaller and precariously funded places since demand for the traditional liberal arts college experience is plummeting. So far, so familiar. Rosenberg, after a distinguished but, according to him, not very impactful 17-year run as president of Macalester, would love for university presidents to operate like CEOs: cut programs, fire faculty (especially all those useless humanists), specialize schools, teach more with fewer people, make budgets lean and mean. The fact that Rosenberg himself was trained as a Victorianist (like yours truly), a formerly prestigious specialization that is now pretty much useless on the job market and in course catalogs, makes Rosenberg's turn from traditional English prof to capitalist administrator all the more striking. Or maybe not--see below.
As Rosenberg concedes, maybe higher ed is resistant to change because the way it’s done--classrooms, liberal arts mission, majors, student loans--is in fact the best setup for learning under current societal conditions. He is doubtful about it, though. Instead, Rosenberg favors the universities-must-survive-market-pressures stance and, working through issues like shared governance and tenure, rehearses his argument throughout. All the while, Rosenberg is nuanced, funny, and oh-so-aware of institutional hierarchies. To build his credibility, he lets us know at the beginning that he has was a Harvard job finalist--congrats? He tells us this so we understand he's no lefty ideologue; the hierarchies are fine by him.
Though he'd likely disagree with me, Rosenberg strikes me as a conservative in the Victorian sense: He assumes that "free"-market capitalism is the only game in town (because it always has been); he prioritizes institutional flexibility over long-term stability and caution (never mind that one of the points of a university is for societies to have a space that keeps thinking about ways of doing things that don't derive from capitalist tenets); and he cherishes the liberal subject (himself) as the protagonist of the story of higher ed. That's why the book reads like it's academia's Bildungsroman. We're stuck in the nineteenth century with Rosenberg which is why I find it unforgivable that he dunks on his own book on Little Dorrit at one point. Yes, FFS, your book was as useful to society as your classroom teaching or your various leadership roles.
Personally, I would argue that universities, like health care, should be exempt from the consumer model, a notion that Rosenberg dismisses, bitterly, several times, as insufficiently pragmatic. I get it. Still, after finishing the book and sitting with it for a while, I would observe that Rosenberg is limited by assuming that the current way the funding structure operates is the only way to do it. The money is there—tax the rich. Maybe college presidents should be more political in agitating their state legislatures for tax increases on corporations and the super-wealthy so that extant infrastructures can be maintained or responsibly built back? If we want higher ed to be a public good that is in fact funded as a public (and not private) good, then let's get to it. Not so Rosenberg, though, who just wants disruption seemingly for disruption's pleasure's sake so that all those underfunded places can finally get in the black, college presidents receive the deference to which they're entitled, and those pesky English profs, forced to retrain as they join the precariat, finally get a dose of what the world is really like.
Anyways, this was a worthwhile read though I disagree with Rosenberg on almost everything.
September 29, 2023
Whatever It Is, I'm Against It by Brian Rosenberg, a retired college president, is a piercing critique of the state of higher education in the United States. Drawing upon his extensive experience, Rosenberg offers a candid diagnosis of the challenges and obstacles that stifle innovation and audacity within the higher education sector. As a former president who no longer bears the weight of institutional responsibilities, Rosenberg fearlessly uncloaks the systemic issues that hinder transformative change and dares to speak the unfiltered truth. This book, hot off the press and released just a couple of weeks ago, is not a roadmap for change but a clarion call to confront the fear, structural barriers, and lack of innovation that plague academia. To delve deeper into the book's insights, readers can explore an accompanying article in Inside Higher Ed, published on September 28, 2023.
Fear vs. Courage (Bravery): Rosenberg's fearless exploration of academia's woes begins with an unfiltered examination of the sources of fear that pervade the hallowed halls of higher education. Whether rooted in tradition, uncertainty, or resistance to change, these fears are laid bare. Rosenberg delves into the reasons why many academic leaders may hesitate to lead with boldness, acknowledging the systemic and structural barriers that often prevent such audacious leadership. While he doesn't explicitly implore academic leaders to immediately replace their fears with audacity, he provides a candid understanding of the challenges they face.
Structural Barriers (Obstacles): Throughout the book, Rosenberg meticulously dissects the structural barriers deeply entrenched in the higher education landscape. He scrutinizes the forces that maintain the status quo and hinder innovation, shedding light on the challenges that come with hierarchical structures, shared governance, and the stronghold of tenure.
Innovation (Opportunity): While Rosenberg's work is less of a roadmap for change and more of a diagnostic examination, it doesn't dismiss the prospect of innovation. Instead, it lays the groundwork for recognizing the urgency of change and the importance of innovation. The book underscores that for innovation to flourish, a collective acknowledgment of the existing impediments is essential. By candidly discussing the challenges, Rosenberg opens the door for meaningful dialogue on how academia can seize the opportunity to transform itself.
In conclusion, Whatever It Is, I'm Against It challenges the very essence of leadership in higher education. It is a wake-up call that urges academic leaders to confront their fears, question structural barriers, and embrace innovation. While Rosenberg doesn't provide a step-by-step guide to change, his candid diagnosis paves the way for honest conversations and critical reflections. This book serves as a vital starting point for those willing to embark on the arduous journey of reshaping the future of academia.
For more information on this work, check out this story in Inside Higher Ed.
#HigherEdLeadership #SharedLeadership #HigherEducation #AcademicInnovation #LeadershipFramework #ChangingWorld #TheClarkCommunique
Fear vs. Courage (Bravery): Rosenberg's fearless exploration of academia's woes begins with an unfiltered examination of the sources of fear that pervade the hallowed halls of higher education. Whether rooted in tradition, uncertainty, or resistance to change, these fears are laid bare. Rosenberg delves into the reasons why many academic leaders may hesitate to lead with boldness, acknowledging the systemic and structural barriers that often prevent such audacious leadership. While he doesn't explicitly implore academic leaders to immediately replace their fears with audacity, he provides a candid understanding of the challenges they face.
Structural Barriers (Obstacles): Throughout the book, Rosenberg meticulously dissects the structural barriers deeply entrenched in the higher education landscape. He scrutinizes the forces that maintain the status quo and hinder innovation, shedding light on the challenges that come with hierarchical structures, shared governance, and the stronghold of tenure.
Innovation (Opportunity): While Rosenberg's work is less of a roadmap for change and more of a diagnostic examination, it doesn't dismiss the prospect of innovation. Instead, it lays the groundwork for recognizing the urgency of change and the importance of innovation. The book underscores that for innovation to flourish, a collective acknowledgment of the existing impediments is essential. By candidly discussing the challenges, Rosenberg opens the door for meaningful dialogue on how academia can seize the opportunity to transform itself.
In conclusion, Whatever It Is, I'm Against It challenges the very essence of leadership in higher education. It is a wake-up call that urges academic leaders to confront their fears, question structural barriers, and embrace innovation. While Rosenberg doesn't provide a step-by-step guide to change, his candid diagnosis paves the way for honest conversations and critical reflections. This book serves as a vital starting point for those willing to embark on the arduous journey of reshaping the future of academia.
For more information on this work, check out this story in Inside Higher Ed.
#HigherEdLeadership #SharedLeadership #HigherEducation #AcademicInnovation #LeadershipFramework #ChangingWorld #TheClarkCommunique
August 20, 2025
3.5
As with so many nonfiction books written for a general audience, this probably could’ve been about half the length and been better. However, I think Rosenthal makes important points about the state of higher educational institutions (or, perhaps, higher education as an institution) and the resistance to change. This transitional conservatism within the institution makes sense; as he lays out beautifully, no individual actor has an incentive to change. But change higher educational must, or fail to live up to its purported goals and ideals.
I especially appreciated his snider insights into the role of faculty and college administration, and the structures both work within. I didn’t have a great understanding of shared governance or the structures of universities or even how tenure actually works, so those sections were informative.
His examples of colleges that ARE innovative were… uninspiring. The two he mentions are ALU (African Leadership University) in Africa and Sterling College in VT. I don’t know about ALU, but while Sterling sounds cool and principled, they graduate 38% of students, and their graduates’ annual salary is barely $30k. I’m not sure that’s a model of effectiveness that we should strive to emulate.
All in all, an interesting book, a bit long in parts, but I enjoyed reading it. I’d recommend to anyone who believes deeply in education but who is disillusioned and concerned by the failures of higher ed to adapt to the modern needs of students and society.
As with so many nonfiction books written for a general audience, this probably could’ve been about half the length and been better. However, I think Rosenthal makes important points about the state of higher educational institutions (or, perhaps, higher education as an institution) and the resistance to change. This transitional conservatism within the institution makes sense; as he lays out beautifully, no individual actor has an incentive to change. But change higher educational must, or fail to live up to its purported goals and ideals.
I especially appreciated his snider insights into the role of faculty and college administration, and the structures both work within. I didn’t have a great understanding of shared governance or the structures of universities or even how tenure actually works, so those sections were informative.
His examples of colleges that ARE innovative were… uninspiring. The two he mentions are ALU (African Leadership University) in Africa and Sterling College in VT. I don’t know about ALU, but while Sterling sounds cool and principled, they graduate 38% of students, and their graduates’ annual salary is barely $30k. I’m not sure that’s a model of effectiveness that we should strive to emulate.
All in all, an interesting book, a bit long in parts, but I enjoyed reading it. I’d recommend to anyone who believes deeply in education but who is disillusioned and concerned by the failures of higher ed to adapt to the modern needs of students and society.
November 13, 2023
I've been involved in higher education for four decades, with half that time as a department chair, dean or president. I've watched as exogenous forces (Baumal's cost disease and rising income inequality, respectively) have driven college costs up and affordability down. I've watched colleges and universities embroil themselves in unproductive struggles to find somebody to blame, rather than focus their intellectual resources on finding ways to serve today's students better in the real world in which we and they now live. Anyone who wants to understand the challenges we face, should read Rosenberg's book. There is little here that won't already be familiar to those paying attention to higher ed, but he summarizes the situation clearly, concisely, and compellingly. I am more optimistic about the possibilities for transformational change in strong legacy institutions than is Rosenberg, but it will require hard sustained work over decades, not rapid disruptive innovation, that recognizes and builds on the real strengths of academic culture without succumbing to its reactionary resistance to change.
October 8, 2023
The word “MOKITA,” is said to derive from a language called Kivila, known to be spoken in Papua New Guinea, translating loosely as “the truth we all know but agree not to talk about.”
This book says what Higher Ed doesn't say out loud. Direct and excellent. I recommend. In Higher Ed we encourage students to be open minded and self aware. That is the mindset we need when we read this book and take action.
This book says what Higher Ed doesn't say out loud. Direct and excellent. I recommend. In Higher Ed we encourage students to be open minded and self aware. That is the mindset we need when we read this book and take action.
May 10, 2024
A must-read for higher ed professionals! Whether you’re a faculty or staff member, this is an eye-opening assessment of where things stand in higher education and what could potentially happen if stakeholders within the University refuse to innovate or create change. This was an incredibly validating read, allowing me to realize I’m not alone in my personal frustrations at work. We have to turn our focus back to the students to reimagine a curriculum that serves them best.
August 31, 2024
Another nonfiction book that has captured my fondness for its arguments! In large part because it highlights issues, and provides solutions, while acknowledging the barriers that prevent the solutions from being implemented. I think this is a forecast of the change that needs to happen in Higher Ed within the next decade or so if lots of schools want to avoid having to chose between closing or being bought out.
October 19, 2024
I appreciated the wealth of professional experience the author adds to the well researched contexts he provides for understanding the higher education industry. The arguments he presents for why even incremental changes in higher education are logical and presented well. But ultimately the big idea(s) he offers for actual paradigm shift(s) are so steeped in a specific cultural context that the possible applicability of the approach felt equally impossible.
April 1, 2024
Written by a retired college president, this book discusses the myriad reasons higher education is not built for transformative change, only small, incremental change. But, Rosenberg argues, if higher education wants to remain relevant, it must find a way to change to meet the demands of the 21st century.
September 13, 2024
I knew that higher ed was facing a lot of challenges, but this made me think I had really underestimated them. The problem is that we large just need a new product and nothing about our current systems supports change - let along large scale innovation. We are doing a lot of youth, and our world, a disservice by not being more innovative in an area that needs it so badly.
October 13, 2024
Dr Rosenberg paints a vivid description of the challenges faced by institutions of higher education. At times he seems to advocate for a reversal of current practices and yearns for the ALU model of Africa. He is fair in his indictments of faculty unions and appropriately questions NTT faculty decisions. A solid read for anyone connected to higher ed.
December 31, 2024
A very short read that gives a current synopsis of higher education & why change in this space is so difficult to enact. While change is often looked down upon, this book shares the reasons why we shouldn’t give up in the fight to make higher education, especially in the US, a more worthwhile & empowering space for all learners.
July 8, 2025
Some controversial takes here, not really any new information though. Unfortunately he is right that probably about 50% of America’s non selective colleges and universities (particularly SLACs in remote locations) will be gone in about 30 years. I’m not sure if any of the changes he suggests are going to be the thing that could save them though
January 10, 2024
An excellent introduction to many of the essential forces that keep higher ed stuck in the status quo. It's a fun and easy read that helps the reader understand the deep commitments that keep American higher ed stuck in a destructive cycle of rising costs, isomorphism, and growing irrelevance.
December 9, 2024
Interesting. Rosenberg sometimes chose to push into the "blow it all up and start over" perspective as a device, but it was an interesting perspective on the challenges of administering higher education.
March 6, 2025
What a fascinating book. Having just started at a university that's undergoing budget cuts and having their relevance questioned, he had some great points and suggestions for how to revamp higher education. Unfortunately for us, they might be too late for implementation.
July 2, 2025
Rosenberg offers a harsh dose of medicine—also the cure—for higher education leaders and institutions that are drowning in their own complacency. Having led communications, marketing, and enrollment for the last 16 years, I can attest his truths.
October 31, 2025
Like any gathering that has more than two people involved, higher education has the best and worst of collective action. Rosenberg does a good job of discussing both, as well as a reasonable path to ensure we are calling on our better angels.
January 11, 2024
Very interesting and refreshing. Makes me appreciate my administrators!
March 10, 2024
This book is, in my estimation, required reading for anyone concerned about the future of higher education. I'll be reading this at least once more from cover to cover.
April 27, 2024
A must-read for anyone in higher ed.
August 28, 2024
This was really familiar and very sobering. It also made me glad that I'm old enough that I will likely be retired when the very worst of this comes to pass.
October 23, 2024
A must read for everyone working in higher education.
August 2, 2025
ok, let's do it. let's change our universities and have some fun for once.
November 19, 2023
Superb. So that is why Higher Ed struggles today to be relevant.
December 1, 2024
A thought-provoking and entertaining book about the causes of the challenges facing higher education in the United States and potential ways forward.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews