Outside Evaluator Report

Curriculum II offers a core of Gustavus Adolphus's finest students an excellent general education, developing in them specific academic skills as well as habits of mind and spirit. The program's emphases on reading primary texts, on in-depth discussions and civil argument, and on writing (both formal papers and informal journals) prepare CII. students for understanding and communicating a range of complex ideas. CII's attention,in all of its courses, to the themes of (1) the individual and society and (2) the examination and clarification of values is essential, ongoing preparation for the students' lives as contributors to civic strength and virtue—a goal of all fine general education Programs.

While CII courses lead students to understand the particular ways of knowing according to specific traditional disciplines, these courses also achieve the program's goal of integrating knowledge. As students remarked to us, because of CII, they find themselves consciously and continuously making connections between and among ideas that at first glance appear quite disparate. This intelligent and mature way of thinking is fostered by the increasing openness and clarity of students' discussions, as they move as a cohort—speaking, listening, and learning--through their several CII courses at Gustavus.

We believe that CII compares most favorably with other liberal arts general education programs across the U.S., not only in its intent, but also in its results—as attested by the program’s current students, its alumni, and its faculty.

The “CII Mission Statement” clearly defines the key learning goals of the program: understanding of the Western tradition, appreciation of interdisciplinary connections, identification and development of values, and understanding of students’ roles as citizens of the world. Similarly, the CII “Vision Statement” clearly holds up as the defining ideals of the program attention to the relationship of the individual and community, and the values of the Western intellectual and cultural tradition, including the diversity within it.

On the whole, the existing curriculum seems well designed to promote these ideals and achieve these overarching goals, and they align well with the particular student outcomes identified in the “Objectives and Outcomes” plan. The first-year courses provide historical perspectives on Western culture and introduction to the Biblical tradition. Both the first and second-year courses offer attention to “the individual and society” and “the individual and morality” as well as the role of imaginative literature and fine arts. The third year includes attention to “the natural world,” and the fourth year senior seminar provides a valuable integrative and reflective perspective on the student’s entire experience in Curriculum II and at Gustavus Adolphus.

However, the one apparent discrepancy between the verbal description of the Program’s vision and goals and its actual character is the shift in emphasis that has occurred over the years away from an exclusively “Western” focus of the curriculum. There has been for some time, but accelerated more recently, a growing focus on the international and non-Western dimensions of human culture and experience. To some degree this transition is reflected in the CII Program materials, e.g., it is noted that students are introduced to non-Western cultures in various courses in the curriculum, as well as during the retreats. Moreover, it is stated that many courses do now include explicit comparisons of Western and non-Western material, and that the CII faculty has recently consulted to ensure more consistency in the consideration of non-Western material. Yet the stated aims and some course titles in the program still assert an essentially Western orientation.

Particularly striking to these evaluators in examining this evolving curriculum is the extraordinary international experience and expertise of faculty and leaders involved with the CII Program, including many who have developed interdisciplinary perspectives well beyond their original fields. These include people from a great variety of departments with knowledge and experience of traditions as varied as Native American cultures, Russian and Balkan history and literature, Turkish society and culture, Japanese culture and arts, Buddhism, and many others. Often this knowledge and experience come with a background and training in Western culture as well.

In this regard, then, it seems that CII might consider making even more explicit as one of its defining goals a focus on international and cross-cultural understanding—and perhaps consider putting this goal on a par with the attention to Western culture—not diminishing current work on Western culture, but understanding it in relation and comparison to others.

At a minimum, the description of the program’s goals and mission should be revised to reflect the actual character of the CII program as faculty currently teach it and as students experience it, i.e., as not aimed only or primarily at appreciation of the Western tradition. But it might be possible for CII to elevate this unique strength of its program into an even more prominent place in its mission's “vision” and goals (though without diminishing other goals like the focus on moral and religious values and the attention to the individual and social responsibility). This would have the advantage of sharpening the program’s distinct identity and mission—perhaps a particularly important desideratum should the “Three Crowns Curriculum” be implemented for the college as a whole, thereby diminishing some of CII’s current distinctiveness. At the same time, this interdisciplinary focus might prove a particularly attractive tool for recruiting new and younger faculty from a variety of departments, offering them the opportunity to introduce materials and courses beyond their current fields, and offering incentive for personal and professional development in the international arena, while continuing the strong CII tradition.

One question plainly on the table for CII is whether to become an honors program. The evaluators discussed this question throughout their visit, and arrived at perspectives that Gustavus leaders may want to consider as they make this judgment. Ultimately, the question of honors or not is not one of academic curriculum or even of CII character and constituency, but of the core identity and public goals of CII and the whole college. At present, it is our opinion that, while some distinct advantages would follow from making CII and honors program, the disadvantages outweigh the gains from such a transition—especially if the program is revitalized in other important ways. It is worth making explicit the advantages and disadvantages as we see them:

Advantages:

1. In many respects, CII already functions as an honors program within GAC. It takes highly talented and especially highly motivated students of varying abilities and challenges them in special ways to high levels of achievement. The faculty expect a great deal of the students, and almost all respond with strong academic performance—a good signal of "honors" (NB: contrary to some beliefs, honors need not be correlated with particular admissions criteria like specified SAT's or
   GPA's).
   
2. Becoming an honors program would raise the public visibility and readily identifiable "credentialing" of CII both for the college and CII alumni. "Honors" is a widely recognized and valued shorthand currency in both academia and the wider society, and identification of CII as such on transcripts and recommendations would obviate the need for more elaborate explanations and translations, and thus perhaps facilitate alumni recognition within academic, religious, professional, and business worlds.
   
   
3. Becoming an honors program would enable CII to connect with similar programs elsewhere. Involvement in groups like the National Collegiate Honors Council might provide wider opportunities for GII students (and faculty) to interact with peers across the country, with benefits in academic stimulation and achievement.
   
4. Finally, designation as an honors program might pay dividends in recruitment and retention of even more of the highly talented and, especially, highly motivated students that Gustavus seeks to attract. (Again, honors programs can and often do define criteria for admissions beyond the obvious and conventional ones—something a Gustavus honors program might well do.)
   

Disadvantages:

But despite these potential advantages, it appears that the arguments against implementing a change to an honors program are weightier:

1. Creating a liberal arts, largely humanities, honors program within the context of traditional undergraduate liberal arts college would be, at best, something of an anomaly. Gustavus Adolphus College considers itself to be a top-100 national liberal arts college, so that the creation of an honors program for a minority of students would be a rather unusual development. Questions would inevitably rise and persist about the rationale for such a program and its relationship to the larger college.
   
2. The deep ethos of Gustavus, including especially that exemplified by the talented students and faculty in Curriculum II, seems sturdily resistant to the honors label. Whether this is rooted in Midwestern democratic egalitarianism, Scandinavian-heritage modesty, or historic Lutheran piety, the implied self-assertiveness and "elitism" of honors seems to run against the grain—as many faculty and especially students made plain to us. One of the genuinely admirable virtues practiced by CII derives from the belief that, as one student said, "We don't want people, including ourselves, to be motivated by a desire for external credentials or honors in distinction from others." Honorable as they plainly are, CII students and faculty prefer to be a high-achieving elite of the modest and humble. Their preference deserves to be honored.
   
3. Despite best efforts to the contrary, designation as an honors program would probably reinforce misperceptions and potential jealousies outside the program, especially on a relatively small campus. Even modest and academically valuable benefits might be perceived as undue privileges. The service that CII provides to the whole campus might be diminished.
   
   
4. Many if not all the advantages of honors designation might just as well be gained by refining and enhancing the CII program and giving it a somewhat enhanced profile—especially if it were to revitalize more distinctive dimensions of its program. This would make CII unique in a way that many honors programs are not. Recruitment, student scholarship, and public recognition of CII could all be improved in ways other than creating an honors program. Emphasizing CII as a “distilled essence” of a general GAC education, rather than something distinct from it, seems to accord better with the spirit and self-understanding of the college.
   
   

Should Curriculum II be called something else? In our judgment the option should be seriously considered. The current name is rather bland and nondescript, conveying nothing of the mission and excitement of the program as we observed it. Alternatives could include a descriptive title more clearly linked to a revised and refined mission (e.g., "Curriculum in Integrative and Global Studies" or "Interdisciplinary-Integrative-International Program"), i.e., a title that would better convey to everyone what CII actually is and aspires to do. Another alternative would be a non-descriptive title that would nevertheless convey the program's signature and exemplary role within GAC's larger mission (e.g., "Carlson Program" or "Nobel Program"—though students told us the latter would be too intimidating and imply a primarily science orientation).

The primary causes for the “loss” of CII students are the difficulty of the program in the first year—especially the perceived difficulty compared to high school--and difficulties in scheduling, especially in later years. The former issue might be addressed by clearer advance indication of the challenging character of CII education, and perhaps by additional support and tutoring for students in first-year courses.

CII students do experience real difficulties in scheduling courses in both CII and their majors, and the desire to focus on the latter causes some to leave CII. Although these problems will never be completely eliminated, they might be alleviated by providing students and advisors with "templates" that give examples of how to schedule courses in both CII and specific majors, year by year. To the extent possible, advanced attention might be given to scheduling CII courses at times that conflict minimally with required courses in the majors. Gustavus might consider scheduling, at 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. (the CII times), only those non-CII courses that have multiple sections.

However, it should be kept in mind that even those students who do not complete CII are not lost to Gustavus Adolphus. Instead, they bring to their other classes (in CI and in their majors) the skills and the learning they have acquired in CII courses, and may enjoy long-term benefits from the program even if they do not complete it. Thus, the fact that all who start in CII do not finish in CII should not be considered a major drawback of the program.

One of the explicit and valuable goals of CII is to nurture "a mature understanding of Christian faith and lives of service"—a goal plainly in line with Gustavus Adolphus’ general mission. Yet currently there seem relatively few places where this aim is explicitly addressed in the CII program. The freshman course in "Biblical Tradition" (which is certainly not necessarily "Western"!) does provide an excellent foundation for such nurturing. But students might benefit from more explicit attention elsewhere in the curriculum—either in separate courses or within the context of current courses—to the historical and global context of Christianity as well as other faith traditions. The recognition that Christianity as well as Islam, Buddhism, and other faiths—whatever their historical past and present geographical concentrations—are genuinely "world religions" might assist students in developing a more considered and mature appreciation of others' faiths as well as their own. In this way, as in others, CII might exemplify and represent core features of GAC's wider mission.

CII's emphases on the individual and community and on values might lead the program to consider a formal incorporation of service-learning as a pedagogical technique. Students in "Historical Perspectives: The Individual and Morality," or the Senior Seminar, for example, would acquire a deeper understanding of the development of their own, and others', values if they could see these enacted and evolving in "real world" contexts.

The benefits of volunteer work are multiplied when students connect these experiences to their reflections on assigned readings and in-classes discussions. This connection—this "service-learning"—can help them to apply their liberal arts education before they graduate: to their own lives, and to the lives of those they help in the community.

For example, working with the Hispanic and Somalian communities in St. Peter not only would broaden and deepen CII students' understanding of community, but also would allow them to better appreciate the advantages, and the difficulties, of speaking another language.

Another consideration is that the large number of CII students who study abroad might benefit from participating in one of several excellent, well-established international service-learning programs—such as, of course, the program in India in which a number of Gustavus Adolphus students already have experienced intense service-learning.

CII students develop a strong sense of community, and with this the willingness and courage to act and to express themselves. These strengths might well be used to benefit a wider community, off-campus, whether local or international, through volunteer activities. (Perhaps a group of CII students might participate in building a Habitat for Humanity House.) The students' reflections upon their volunteer activities—whether individual or group—in the context of their curricular learning about community and values, create deeper, more complex, and more meaningful learning.

Finally, innovative and well-anchored service-learning programs can attract substantial external funding and recognition, both local and national, which would benefit Gustavus Adolphus College as a whole, and not merely CII.

All new GA faculty should be introduced to CII by its director or its faculty. Though it may be less feasible for untenured faculty to teach in the program, the director certainly can express strong interest in their doing so, noting the strengths which these individuals would contribute to the program, as well as the pleasures and benefits their participation would bring them.

It might be possible for CII to offer "internships" to its new faculty. This could involve giving someone one course of reassigned time in order to prepare materials and to observe the classes of experienced CII faculty, as well as to participate in any CII faculty development opportunities. (This could be done in conjunction with or as a replacement for the current system of supporting faculty's summer preparation of a CII course.)

We recommend that more opportunities be offered for CII faculty development—as, we understand, was the case in the earlier years of the program. Perhaps summer or J-Term reading-groups might be established for CII faculty to read and discuss non-Western, or non-Canonical, texts. Perhaps CII faculty (like CII students) could benefit from an annual retreat during which they could share insights about the program.

The public presentation of the CII program, including the methods of informing potential students about it and inviting them to participate, seem in need of improvement. Details aside, the program might benefit from:

1. A more attractive, informative, and widely available brochure that would present the mission, character, and outcomes of a CII education to all potential Gustavus students.
   
2. A more uniform, systematic approach to inviting admitted Gustavus students into the program. (We were struck by the diverse and sometimes random means by which students learned of or were recruited into the program, and the apparent innocence or ignorance of some who did not apply or turned it down and later regretted the decision.)
   
3. A more regular means of presenting information about CII to on-campus and off-campus constituencies, including students, faculty, department chairs, administrators, admissions and public relations staff, board members, alumni, and so on. Regular featuring of CII students and activities in various GAC reports and publications would be an important way of "normalizing" the program as an enduring and integral component within GAC's educational spectrum, and help "de-mystify" (a term both faculty and students used) what has apparently been, for some, an unknown or peculiar campus presence.