I have used the Understanding by Design framework for many years in my own teaching but have expected my students to achieve A or better success. That is, excellence is a foundational expectation. At the same time, flexibility, creativity, and innovative thinking has been important. In being a coach rather than a prescriber of exactness, I have asked student to soar beyond the prescriptive to the inventive. For students who want to know exactly what and how much to do to “please” me, confusion abounds. How many articles should I read? How many words should I use to summarize the article? When is the precise moment I should accomplish this task? This kind of student robot is as much frustrating to me as it is to the student who can’t understand why I am not pulling the strings of their arms, legs, minds, pens, and tongues. Such behavior is engrained in a generation of cookie cutter and prescriptive teaching and learning to achieve success on the all important test. It does take some time for students to learn self-direction and to come into command of their own learning. All this is an introduction to what I think the message of this advanced guide to UbD. I get the impression that the plan behind this book is prescriptive teaching; i.e., once you set the bar using whatever standards you are working with, the outcome is set in concrete. The student will achieve only what a teacher expects. Thus, I see this role for the teacher as even more dictatorial than I had interpreted it to be in the initial models. I prefer the interpretation to be guide on the side rather than scientist on the stage. The entire world of critical thinking, creative thinking, and collaborative intelligence cries out for a larger role for engagement, fascination, discovery, experimentation, exploration, invention, questioning, and inventing than I see happening in this new interpretation. It is the difference between tightening down the screws and liberation. So, while I choose that path, the reader may choose this clarification and prescription by Wiggins and McTigue. I would like to ask the authors to respond to such a dichotomy or if they see such a divide. Perhaps I will have that opportunity. If you get a chance, let me know.