The essays compiled in this volume explore “the dynamic process, of advances and backward steps, of reforms and counterreforms, that has characterized Chilean higher education” since the country gained independence almost two centuries ago (p. x). They do so, crucially, through the lenses of gender, class, and ethnicity. With this approach, and this is the book’s central claim, they provide new viewpoints and fresh insights on the subject, going beyond the existing secondary literature, which, Robert Austin Henry maintains, mainly pays attention to the roles played by university-based intellectuals in Chile’s system of higher education in particular, and in national politics in general. The volume claims to achieve what other publications fail to do, such as Academic Rebels in Chile by Iván Jaksić (1989), the only study explicitly identified as representative of this trend and singled out for criticism by Henry. In view of the overall thrust of the book, the choice of title neither captures its spirit nor indicates its subject matter.It seems to lie in the nature of edited volumes that not all essays conform to the same standards or are equally insightful and interesting to read, and Intelectuales y educación superior en Chile is no exception to this rule. It includes some readable and well-informed contributions. The best example in this respect is Alvaro Bello’s chapter on indigenous intellectuals and universities. It is easily accessible and makes ample use of interviews with Mapuche intellectuals and activists; it is also one of only three articles (out of eight) which have not previously been published in one way or the other. Useful as well is Emma Salas Neumann’s panoramic contribution about the Chilean women’s emancipation movement and higher education, covering more than eight decades (from the late 1870s to 1950) in no more than 20 pages. Although one gains the impression that most of what she says has already appeared in an article published back in 1992, and the chapter is economical with quotes from primary sources as well as references to the secondary literature, it does give one an idea of the main issues.Considerably less enjoyable are the various chapters by Henry, who is ultimately responsible for more than half of the book, having written two chapters and coauthored two more, one of which (chap. 8) originally appeared under his sole authorship. All of them, especially the first essay, on the foundation and the historical development of higher education in Chile, suffer from sweeping statements and a penchant for simplistic labels and distinguish themselves by the heavy use of Marxist and postmodernist jargon. Describing the pedagogues Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi and Johann Friedrich Herbart as authoritarian, for example, does not do them justice; their works were certainly more complex. I also wondered what Henry means when he terms the Instituto Pedagógico, founded in 1889 on the basis of the German education system (and ideal), a “proyecto extranjerizante-europeizante” (p. 17); he certainly does not elaborate on it. Nor does it help, to give a final example, when statements about the allegedly sexist and conservative content of contemporary Chilean textbooks are not backed up by any quotes.In view of the fact that this volume was begun as early as 1996, one would have expected better editorial work and a more balanced result. There are numerous thematic overlaps between the different contributions and also many repetitions. The entire book lacks a central thread, which could have held together the disparate chapters. The issues of gender, class, and ethnicity, which are indeed addressed throughout the volume (although the first two more so than the latter), are too broad to give the book a clear structure. At the same time, the introduction is too short to provide a proper framework, and the first chapter does not live up to the claim that it lays the foundations for the other articles. In the end, the book leaves a decidedly mixed impression. One cannot deny that it does represent an effort to address important questions and fill lacunae in the literature, but because of its incoherence and heterogeneity it does not do so in a satisfactory way.