Grant programs that had been relatively open-ended were now tightly drawn, grounded in the foundations' own carefully articulated take on issues and receptive only to proposals that responded appropriately. Initiative and creativity had shifted heavily from prospective grantee to grantor. As foundations embraced this funding-by-agenda, it burdened their relationship with colleges and universities, who still preferred to bring their own ideas to the table. Some cut back or completely eliminated their programs in higher education teaching and learning. They also turned increasingly to pre-college education, funding for which in absolute dollars increased twice as fast as that for colleges and universities between 1990 and 2004. Critics accuse foundations of myopia and too frequently abandoning programs. Foundation officials, however, prefer to talk about "nimbleness" and the ability to move quickly and address new issues, something they will be loath to give up. Universities, for their part, are not built to produce the quick results foundations often look for. In this article, the author hopes that foundations and higher education can improve their relationship, even around the thorny issue of teaching and learning.