In this article, the author discussses his participation in a round-table discussion held in Denver at the invitation of the secretary of education, Margaret Spellings. Their discussion focused on the establishment of a national commission for the future of higher education. They talked easily and candidly about higher education's strengths and weaknesses, as well as about the need for new investments in its research mission and more focus on producing work-ready graduates. While they noted higher education's often cumbersome ways, they also discussed why it should be more of a national priority. Most participants came away from the Denver session believing a national dialogue on the future of higher education just might be possible and a good idea. In September, Spellings announced the creation of her National Commission on the Future of Higher Education, chaired by Charles Miller, a Texas investor. The commission's task was to develop a "comprehensive national strategy for postsecondary education." The following May, the commission began to outline a set of basic findings and policy recommendations that most members felt were largely positive. Unbeknown to commission members, however, Miller and his team of consultants had begun to draft a set of findings and a preamble to a report whose clear intention was to jolt higher education. Commission members, not only felt that it was not "their" text in circulation, but also felt that Miller's report was all about "playing the blame game" rather than challenging higher education. The author discusses the reasons for the rise and fall of the Spellings Commission, and describes the lessons learned in the process of attempting to transform American higher education.