Instead of closing, here’s what Sweet Briar could have done, according to a marketer, writing in Inside Higher Ed, who would have liked the business: Start with a name change.

Would a name change, by itself, have solved Sweet Briar’s problems? Probably not. But a name change coupled with a revisioning process, the development of new programs and/or institutional profile, a rebranding of the institution, and a commitment to transparency by volunteer and administrative leadership could have provided sufficient leeway for the college to redefine itself — profitably — into the future.

Now wait a minute. The lesson of disruptive change, which some people believe the higher education industry is undergoing, is that the turbulence becomes overwhelming. According to the original theory proposed by Clayton Christensen, the only way for an entity (a business at the time he proposed this) to survive a disruptive technology is to create an independent subsidiary, as IBM did when the personal computer challenged it and the way Southern New Hampshire University is doing in the face of online education.

The marketer, Robert M. Moore, makes some points, but, frankly, I think he is whistling in the wind.