Readers of Student Success who have been involved in their institutions' use of the National Survey of Student Engagement will find familiar territory here, as the in-depth research reported in the book is intimately connected with NSSE. Anyone who (like this writer) has had to deal with details of administering NSSE and then interpreting its results and presenting them to decision makers, will have an advantage in terms of prior knowledge about NSSE terminology and background. In fact, the twenty successful institutions featured in the book were chosen after careful analysis of NSSE data identified them as scoring higher than predicted on the following NSSE "benchmarks":

• Level of Academic Challenge
• Active and Collaborative Learning
• Student Interaction with Faculty
• Enriching Educational Experiences
• Supportive Campus Environment

However, as Kuh, et al., stress, these schools were not chosen because they were literally "...the ‘best' or the ‘most educationally effective' of the more than 700 colleges and universities that had used the NSSE by 2003." (p. 18) Rather, their performance was noteworthy because they scored higher than predicted in the NSSE benchmark clusters, and because their programs could be adapted and used at other institutions. As well, "They share six features that foster student engagement and persistence:

• A ‘living' mission and ‘lived' educational philosophy
• An unshakable focus on student learning
• Environments adapted for educational enrichment
• Clearly marked pathways to student success
• An improvement oriented ethos
• Shared responsibility for educational quality and student success." (p. 24)

These features are the focus of much of the book.

The book has four parts. The first discusses the "Documenting Effective Educational Practices" (DEEP) study that explored student success issues, and whose acronym is given to the twenty institutions described. The second part provides details about how the "DEEP" institutions implement the six common features listed above. Part three includes examples of policies, programs, and practices that encourage student engagement at the institutions, and connects them to the five NSSE benchmark areas. Finally, part four summarizes findings from the DEEP study and makes recommendations for change and improvement.

A cynical reader might ask why what happens at Wofford College or any other DEEP institution has any transferability to "my" college. The answer, of course, is that direct transferability is counter to the first common feature of successful institutions: that they must have and "live" their own missions and philosophies. Copycat programs are no guarantee for success because they invariably do not fit local context, and may even be contrary to it. For the record, Wofford College is where, as the "Educationally Effective Colleges Quiz" on p. 5 informs us, we find, "...the smallest college playing Division 1 football where interdisciplinary learning communities for first-year students are designed and led by faculty and student preceptor." Match that at dear old Ivy U.!

But a more complete response to the question of "Why should I care?" has to include what is the meat of this book: an in-depth exploration of ideas that can be taken at face value and modified or adapted at any institution so as to best match local context while retaining their underlying power to help faculty and administrators help students to succeed. Importantly, there are more than two score recommendations in Chapter 14 and all are worth considering. These are culled from the experience of DEEP institutions but are framed in general terms that apply to any institution. It is the translation into the local context that is the key.

One thing not provided (and not truly the province of this book) is a guide for institutional change. For example, the recommendation "Tighten the operational linkages between academic affairs and student affairs." (p. 312) is instructionally sound, intuitively appealing, and imminently logical. However, in real-world terms, doing this may involve uncomfortable issues like determining which vice-president will gain or lose control of resources, personnel, and budget. In unionized environments, grappling with implications for changes in established bargaining agreements may pose a significant challenge. To succeed in improving student chances for success, institutions must first deal with and resolve less academic and more pragmatic issues such as these. At the heart of it is the degree to which the community that is the college or university can overcome more narrow and plebeian complaints in favor of becoming what its mission says it is. Sacrifice and compromise are often necessary, but if one wants a general blueprint for improvement and a way to deal with contemporary issues that are forcing change upon higher education (like it or not), then a careful review of both the underlying principles and the specific details found in Student Success in College is one step in the direction of effecting that improvement. We can not offer less to our students or to the society that expects so much from our work. We can also hope that as a result of this kind of effort, higher education will regain the promise, status, and influence it should have in an ever more complex society facing an ever more dangerous and unpredictable world, and we can hope that successful graduates of successful colleges can help to change that world for the better.