I actually liked the discussion portion of the earlier portion of this book. For my money, I like the Prager-McCarthy Composite Financial Index better as an indicator of financial health of an institution, but like all models, there are limitations in its usefulness and this study was not solely a focus on financial health. One drawback: the model focuses narrowly on traditional undergraduate enrollments, ignoring enrollment trends in graduate programs or non-traditional students. Too, "stress" as measured herein assumes a straight line trajectory of history, without any consideration or weighting of one value over another (think simple regression analysis).The study itself is benign, however, any conclusions drawn might prove so wrong as to render anyone trying to draw predictions from the values open to lawsuits. To publish that institution A is "stressed" may lead one to conclude it is failing and may close. Hence, potential students or their families relying on this analysis may elect to pass on a college that is perfectly viable. Or the opposite may happen where a college's stress test reveals no stress, but which may suddenly close, as the data relies on information that is at least two years old at best (from IPEDS).Does the book provide an exercise for any institution to use to examine itself? Sure. Is it helpful for making predictions about the future likelihood of a sudden end? Maybe. Is it a must-read for higher ed board members and administrators? No. But it doesn't hurt either. It may help foster good conversations about the higher education business model and what makes for a stable institution.