Open discussion area for called faculty meeting on curriculum revision, March 1, 2017

Please add below any comments you have about the meeting on March 1, about the general education revision process, or about any other faculty or college issue. You may post anonymously if you prefer. As always, I will add comments from cards written at the meeting (unless the writer indicates not to do so).


  1. How would a signature work/last course project mesh with a senior thesis? It seems like it would be hard to do a meaningful signature work while also completing a senior thesis project all in the same year.

    • I think there are interesting possibilities that the signature work for a CiP could BE the senior thesis, if that’s agreeable for both the major and the CiP. It may not work in every instance, but it seems like a possibility worth exploring.

  2. I hope this is thought-provoking, and not just provoking. I ran out of time to share this thought at the end.

    I am a little confused as to why the “Critical Perspectives”, as formulated in our current curriculum, are so important that they are worth holding up the process over to make sure they are explicitly in there. I was not here in 1998, but as I understand it, they were kind of a hybrid chimera, born of tug-of-war in different directions. I mean, “Environmental Responsibility *or* Social Justice”? Those two are not interchangeable. And I’ve had several long, fascinating conversations with colleagues about the problematic connotations and limitations of the word “Intercultural”. I’m not sure these three (or four, depending how you count) things are worth preserving explicitly in the new curriculum. Secondly, however they were developed, they were developed in 1998. Is there really no better or more pressing way to reformulate them for 2017?

    Personally, I *like* that they’re not explicitly in the proposal, because I think we should have a larger, and longer, conversation about what the critical perspectives mean for the 21st century, and I don’t think it’s fair or appropriate to ask LAGER to do that. I think the new curriculum is flexible enough that once we figure out what the new CPs are, we can integrate them into the curriculum, probably more effectively than they are now. If they really are an authentic, integral, expression of who we are and what we think is important, we will put them into the content of the curriculum as we develop the requirements.

    Maybe that means I’m just one of the people who can see structure without content, so I’m trying to remain open to other perspectives. To be brutally honest, I’m just frightened. If the consultants are to be believed, we have a narrow window to do something innovative, and although I am a Quaker, and I certainly know we move slowly, I am worried that if we wait until it’s *perfect*, we will never get it done.

    On the other hand, I completely agree with those who said if this isn’t properly funded and supported, it’s going to be terrible. We do kind of have a track record of coming up with amazingly creative ideas that stumble out of the gate because of lack of resources and support.

    So, I hope I haven’t misunderstood people too badly, and I welcome corrections if I have mischaracterized someone’s concern or objection.

    • Don,
      Thanks for posting these comments and questions. I fully agree that we need a larger, and longer, conversation about what the critical perspectives mean for the 21st century. For me, that conversation is inseparable from any curriculum revision, because the curriculum is the basic framework within which we teach students. In fact, I would think that a curriculum revision would be the perfect time to revisit the purpose of these requirements. Actually, the proposal we have before us implicitly identifies some parts of our current curriculum as worth keeping (e.g., majors) and others as unnecessary (minors). The critical perspectives requirements have been conspicuously sidelined. I love the idea of touching on important issues throughout the curriculum; and I know that trying to do important, counter-cultural work everywhere (that is, in general) can effectively mean doing it nowhere.

      I also agree that our current critical perspectives requirements are imperfect. However, they pointedly seek to correct several major biases in Western education, primarily its Eurocentrism. Note, for example, that only one of the languages we teach at Guilford is not a European language. It’s easy to find Eurocentrism throughout the institution and curriculum. In an increasingly diverse, globalized world, I think it is critical that we prepare students to think about cultural diversity and systems of oppression critically and openly. Our world is deeply unjust. American society is now and always has been built on oppression and exclusion, and Guilford College is embedded in that society. So I believe that we must make a concerted effort to teach social justice. We are also facing climate catastrophe on our planet, so environmental awareness must, in my view, be built into the curriculum from the beginning. My own preference is for linking social justice and environmental responsibility using the concept of environmental justice.

      Although I am not wed to our current critical perspectives requirements, I am opposed to developing a curriculum that does not address some of these issues in an explicit, institutionalized way. I welcome further conversation.

      • Tom speaks my mind.

        I’d like to suggest some ways to embed the critical perspectives into the new curriculum – although I realize this may be wildly unpopular among some and considered woefully insufficient by others. But here it goes:

        • Can we reframe the 2nd Gateway requirement as a class called something like “Introduction to critical perspectives?” (or Gateway to critical perspectives if keeping the Gateway name is important) The class could still include some of the components of the Lager’s proposed second gateway – common readings and other “things” but they would be all be related to diversity and social justice. The crux of that course would be teaching critical pedagogy on race and gender. It would lay the framework for how to have meaningful and deep discussions about these issues as well as some basic theoretical frameworks. This isn’t my area at all, by the way, so the exact content would need to be shaped as part of the larger discussion Tom mentions above, and I’d want to hear from those who have expertise in this area.

        My rationale for suggesting reframing this class is that it occurred to me yesterday that we already have introductions to disciplinary thinking (PSY 100, PSCI 100, SOAN 100, etc), so I am not clear what the purpose of the 2nd gateway is. It sounds like a disciplinary FYS, and as much as I like FYS in theory – the class is a nightmare to teach and it just doesn’t seem to work like it is supposed to.

        • Lager, I believe had kicked around embedding CP in the breadth requirements, and I think this is a great idea. If we reframe the humanities and social breadth courses as as “Critical perspectives in arts and humanities,” and “Critical perspectives in social science,” both of which would address critical perspectives from a disciplinary lens. Some of our current “explorations” courses that double count for CP might still work here, and faculty could create/adjust other courses based on how we decide to conceptualize/operationalize critical perspectives.

        • Perhaps we can even reframe the natural sciences requirement as “Natural science and quantitative reasoning” – maybe this already happens, or maybe this will be too much for those courses since we currently don’t have any courses double counting for NS and QL.

        • I really like the immersives piece. It would be nice to figure out how to tie that in more explicitly with some of these specific classes critical perspective courses and what we are currently calling the CiPs.

        • And…is there any way we can cut back on the CiPs a bit? Maybe require just 3 courses instead of 4 to leave room for study abroad, heavy majors, flexibility, etc. And perhaps require one of those 3 semesters to focus on critical perspectives in the focus area. But I really liked Katherine’s idea that some CiPs might have other specific pre-reqs and others won’t, so those CiPs that really require some other coursework could have that it just wouldn’t be a requirement for everyone.

        • If we do cut back the CiP requirement a bit, can we put back HP? The writing program is one of the strengths of our current curriculum and I’d hate to risk losing that.

        I appreciate everyone’s contribution to this discussion, and thank you to Lager for all their work on trying to create a distinctive curriculum. It is clear that everyone wants what is best for our students and the College.

      • I apologize if I implied above that Guilford’s foreign language department is Eurocentric. The department teaches global awareness and intercultural understanding in a way that is vitally important to the college. A few years ago I audited a Spanish course and learned a great deal about the diverse cultures and histories of Latin America. I enthusiastically support requiring students to take two semesters of a foreign language. My point was that the institution as a whole (including my own discipline) privileges Western knowledge.

  3. Apologies for missing the meeting. In response to concerns about critical perspectives: SJ/ER were merged only because some faculty did not want more than three CPs. Initially this was very frustrating, although at this point I teach those issues as continuous with one another. This is not unusual. The basic idea is that conceptions and attitudes embedded in ‘western culture’ that condone/encourage disregard of the well-being of non-human-nature are continuous/linked with those that condone/encourage disregard of people of color and people gendered feminine or non-binary. (I don’t mean that this is how these courses ought to be taught–there is much value in multiple approaches)

    Is it possible that faculty who do not teach CPs may not have had the opportunity to hear, in a focused and organized way, from faculty who do teach courses for CPs ?

  4. Pingback:Discussion on Critical Perspectives – Wednesday, March 15, 3:45 p.m. - The Moon Room

  5. I am coming to this discussion not having been present for faculty meetings this semester as I am on sabbatical. But I found out about the critical perspectives discussion via Dave’s most recent email announcing Wednesday’s meeting about it (as well as Moon Room posts, etc.). So while I feel a bit on the outside, I do have a rather strong opinion about this and want to express it. So I’m happy to have the Moon Room as a space to do just that.

    I am strongly against adding any critical perspectives to this new curriculum. If feels like putting an agenda on top of the curriculum rather than infiltrating such important and vital issues into the foundation of what we do in a more organic way. In other words-we should be teaching about such important social justice issues innately because of who we are. The very thread of our core values states that we are that. Also, the thing I love about this curriculum is that it paints broad strokes as far as “rules” and allows us to unfold and develop those details together rather than being put upon to do certain things. So this feels prescriptive in a way I don’t like and in a way I thought we were trying to get away from.

    Trying to throw on CP’s quickly feels a lot like how they were first created. Then we get into the question of who gets to decide what is critical. And as an ethical and responsible academic institution we could be in that discussion forever. What department or major or area says what’s critical? For example, my truth is that I think the arts absolutely fall under this category. But then we’re in an egocentric battle about whose (or what) issues are more critical than others.

    I agree w/ a lot of what’s being said above from several folks. But what fall under the category of “critical perspective” is always going to changing as the current social, economic and political climate changes. I think we should be able to adapt and be broad in our reach for how we define these. And being an institution that believes in such things as diversity and environmental issues (just two examples) we should always be striving to incorporate those things into the culture of the curriculum and school. Please don’t put a prescriptive and limiting agenda on top of a really flexible and open ideology. Let’s think larger and outside the box instead of putting ourselves back into the same box. Best metaphor I can think of is that I see doing this will be putting a speed bump in our new curriculum.

    Thanks for listening and allowing my input even though I’m currently on sabbatical! Feel free to share what I’ve written at the Wednesday meeting since I won’t be there.

    • I strongly and sincerely believe that we should not postpone a discussion of the critical perspectives component of our curriculum. Thus, I appreciate the comments offered by several colleagues. I would like to directly respond to some specific statements I’ve found debatable or problematic, making it clear that it is not my desire to aggravate or personally affront anyone. In the same spirit, I also hope that my points are taken as sincere concerns proceeding from a professional position, rather than an egocentric attitude.
      Since other participants in this conversation have already addressed some of my general views on the topic, I will mostly refer to some of the points raised by Kami in her letter.
      I’m not opposed to reconsidering the labels we use or revising the content of what we call “critical perspective,” but I think it would be a misstep to exclude or dilute this portion of our curriculum. I agree with Tom, Nancy, and other colleagues who have explained in this and other forums why we should include courses about diversity, intercultural, and environmental issues in our general education program: dissecting and deconstructing the multiple layers of Eurocentric bias built in our ways of thinking, which systematically neglect non-Western worldviews, people of color, feminine and non-binary gender identities is, indeed, critical in any academic program.
      Courses that revolve around race, gender, class inequality, culture or international issues and globalization, to name some of the areas currently included in “critical perspectives,” are founded on analytical frameworks that have been methodically researched and theorized. Accordingly, I would be extremely worried if the approach we took was to teach about such important issues “innately,” without a scholarly examination of their historical context, institutional framing, and the biases that tend to sustain commonly held assumptions and prejudices.
      Indeed, we live in a constantly changing political, economic, and social climate that requires us to adapt our curriculum to such evolving realities. This recognition makes me question the view of our critical perspectives curriculum (or whatever label we use) as a “box” and the term “speed bump” as a metaphor to depict it. In fact, providing students with the conceptual tools to evaluate ongoing and emerging trends should be a substantive goal in higher education. Projections that by mid-twenty first century the majority of the U.S. population will be non-white are every day more concrete and the backlash that this has generated more worrisome. As our world becomes more interconnected, the asymmetrical character of global exchanges becomes more evident and debates about the future of our planet turn more urgent, intense, and polarized. Just recently we heard our students declare “black transgender lives matter,” which clearly speaks to issues of intersectionality with significant political implications. It is our responsibility to provide our learners with more than just short workshops or a broad-stroke approach to these topics. It in fact seems reasonable and sensible to include an intentionally designed curricular component that prepares students to cogently articulate their concerns and engage these issues in the community.
      I was not yet a teacher at Guilford when the current curriculum, which includes “critical perspectives,” was passed. Yet, I don’t think we’re throwing on CP’s quickly. More than a few colleagues have articulated with specific arguments why this is an important part of our students’ education and I’m not yet clear why we should be so quick to dismiss it or leave it for later discussions when, apparently, there’s so much at stake in this regard.

  6. Maria speaks my mind.

    As I read through the discussion, I also find Nancy’s point key: we need a larger, full faculty discussion about what critical perspectives currently mean in our curriculum, and what we want them to mean as we contend with the 21st century and its significant global and local problems.

    It strikes me that a problem with how CPs are currently taught is that too few disciplines have offered them or there hasn’t been enough of an opportunity for innovative, interdisciplinary team teaching.

    Our social reality is that we do not live in a post-racial, post-gender, classless society or world. Those who suffer most on this planet from power/oppression are disproportionately poor, brown, black, indigenous, and often female/female-identified, young (children) and/or elderly (this list is not exhaustive).

    This social reality persists and does not have a disciplinary home. Country of origin, race/ethnicity, class, gender, age etc. are relevant for who gets to conduct scientific research or have that research funded/recognized, who has access to healthy food, whose artistic expression or protest through art/music is realized, and whose is not.

    I am in no way offering a border or boundary for how inequality, power/oppression, social justice “should be” or could be taught, but rather, am trying to point out that CPs are academically relevant across the college. Personally, I see an incredible opportunity for interdisciplinary teaching and learning for how we proceed in our new gen ed curriculum.

    CPs are also relevant for what kind of community we say we are or aspire to be. The recent alleged assault of a non-binary student of color and the ensuing student protests, the new Trump travel ban, the climate-denying EPA head, and the welcoming of a new Every Campus a Refuge family all have profound implications across our campus community. They also are echoes of larger issues throughout Greensboro, our country, and our world.

    As we move forward, I see an opportunity to design a creative, innovative curriculum that has outcomes for teaching students the skills, knowledge, and problem-solving skills to contend with new problems and contexts after they leave Guilford, and as they consider how they want to participate in their communities as mindful, engaged citizens.

    I also hope that as we debate LAGER that those who disagree with one another are open to each other—and that the stress of time and enrollment pressures do not lead us to sideline differing views as “holding up the process.” Personally, I cannot separate gen ed content from structure; that doesn’t mean I’m pushing for a particular agenda or privileging a disciplinary lens.

    Finally, I have concerns that faculty are being asked to approve a new curriculum this semester in light of the Arts & Sciences findings when we do not seem to have a collective understanding what those findings mean for the curriculum. I realize that’s another issue than CPs, but I hope that given the pressure and limited time to act that we prioritize time to offer more clarity and information about the implications of Arts & Sciences for LAGER.

  7. Maria-thank you so much for your response here to what I wrote. I respect all that you have offered here and always.

    I just wanted to be clear that I do not disagree that such crucial elements as the ones address in CPs (and hopefully even more) would be a large part of what we teach here at Guilford. I’m not arguing that we remove these from our general education radar. Just that we don’t make specific requirements around them. I assume and feel that for a very large part of our current teaching and culture, we do address these. I know I do in my classes. And while I taught a DUC course for 13 years, I (and many others I believe) operate form the foundation of CP’s in most things we teach. A specific example to make my case is that Wendy chooses a lot of diversity in the music selection for her choir. While her class does not count for IC or DUS, it is always on her radar due to our core values. So to try and articulate my point better, I don’t think we should be leaving this out of our curriculum. But by naming a few and specifying these as a requirement I see that we actual might limit ourselves. Another analogy is when we “say” we’re going to do something so we name it and put it as an additive while what we really should be doing is making it foundational. So in some ways, I’m attempting to say CPs are absolutely critical. But I think we should be writing it into the larger picture as an umbrella for our curriculum (I believe the arts can function similarly) so we see it throughout seamlessly rather than adding on more “requirements.” I really dig a curriculum that has more flexibility and see faculty that are more focused or interested in CPs totally able to make choices to teach about those.

    Also-I don’t see this as part of holding up the process. I believe that the folks (and I’m just learning now here who you are) that want to see these written into the curriculum, really feel strongly and passionately about these issues. So we need to find a compromise or address this in a real way. But my fear is that once you start prescribing, there’s going to a lot of issues around what these look like and what’s more “important” than something else. Then it starts to get territorial. Not because of ego, but because of the specific passions around areas of expertise. Again, I offer the arts from my perspective. I would have to fight to say I believe the arts are a critical perspective and perhaps one of the things that can most heal and teach and affect the world today. But I don’t want to argue for that. I’d rather just be able to teach it because I can based on a flexible and open structure.

    So I would offer, as a compromise, to write it into the curriculum in another way. Keep the ideology and write it as an expectation, or make certain areas include these focuses. But open up to how many these could possible be (I see potential for many), include them, but don’t make specific requirements around them. Because that begins to create a different feel for this design to me.

    Thank you again for your discussions and exchange! This is and exciting part of the process!

    • Kami,

      I appreciate the time you’ve taken to explain your view about the curriculum and, specifically, about critical perspectives. I understand your point and like the idea of infusing all different courses and areas we teach at Guilford with our values and commitment to social justice and anti-oppression in its different manifestations. Yet I still believe – and we differ in this regard, it seems – that our students need to have a systematic exposure, through specific courses designed for this purpose, to the analytical frameworks that examine not so obvious hegemonic discourses and systems of inequality. One of the points that many of our colleagues have been making in this regard is that this education is all the more crucial and should take place early if we expect our students to take part in experiential learning and commit to community engagement through “communities in practice.” As to the prescriptive nature of having required courses in these areas, I honestly don’t see how this would be different from other requirements we include as part of the gateways, breadth courses, majors, minors, and communities in practice which, eventually, would stipulate what courses or study areas students have to fulfill.
      By the way, while in this forum I have focused on what we’ve been calling critical perspectives, from the start I wondered why the arts (as well as math/quantitative requirements) were not included explicitly in the new proposal. I’m not an artist, yet art has played a major role in my life as a source of knowledge, expression, and inspiration in various regards and realms. I genuinely believe that this should also be a core component of a liberal arts education. Thanks, again, for responding to the concerns I raised in my previous letter.

  8. Don and Kami speak my mind.

    It seems to me that the What-We-Are-Currently-Calling-CiPs (side note: maybe we could have a campus-wide contest to come up with a stellar central experience name that would be appealing to students, and maybe even a contest for a new name for “critical perspectives” once we have discussed the topic further) have enough space and flexibility to deeply and meaningfully weave “critical perspectives” throughout a suite of courses through rigorous material, experience, and discussion. Furthermore, we could have faculty development opportunities to share ideas on quality resources addressing “perspectives”, which could create links among the stellar central experiences. Finally, we can be adaptive by assessing our “perspectives” every few years to make sure we are addressing those that will increase the resilience and beauty of our ever-changing, local-global, cultural-economic-emotional-environmental-expressive-mindful-physical-political-scientific-secular-social-spiritual-technical-human-and-more-than-human world. And universe.

    Indeed, if we make the stellar central experiences larger (i.e., more credits and courses) rather than smaller we would have the ability to incorporate “critical perspectives” even more deeply. I’m specifically thinking back to LAGER’s initial proposal, which included many more seminar opportunities and still left plenty of wiggle room for additional classes, even for students in the largest-credit majors.

    Thanks for reading my hyphen-happy writing. See you Wednesday. Kami, I’d be happy to share your thoughts if there is time and space.


  9. I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion regarding the last called meeting and the forum today (that I, unfortunately) will not be able to attend).

    After the last iteration of the proposal that LAGER presented to the faculty, I must say that I mourned for many of the lost elements that were trimmed away in order to make a leaner set of requirements that might slip through the narrow pathway requested by at least a subset of the faculty. In doing so, I feel that a large part of what made the proposed curriculum interesting and unique was lost in the process. Removing the CIP related courses in the middle (2nd -3rd year) and detaching the breadth requirements from the CIP makes it so there the loss of “community” in the practice. In addition, with the loss of interactions between emerging sophomore/juniors and the capstone seniors working on their signature project, there is no “practice” in the community. WhiIe I appreciated Katherine’s suggestion (at the meeting) that perhaps some CIPs will be larger than others, so that those of us interested in trying to engage students earlier in their academic careers could do so, this structure leaves others with a barebones process. Furthermore, for those of us intending to engage with outside communities—it is imperative that these CIPs maintain some degree of continuity so that we are not tapping into the rich cultures and communities that surround us only to back off and or be inconsistent in our engagement. The tiered system, with seasoned senior students helping train and introduce younger students to the project and community is vital to maintaining a healthy, viable relationship.

    In regard to the critical perspectives, having read back through the faculty minutes from the last general education revision, it is clear that those important requirements were hard won, and not without compromise. I understand and sympathize that those ardently trying to defend them. I just wonder if there are other ways to imbed them into your proposed framework. Eva suggested introducing them in the second of the two gateway courses…I think that is a good place to start- but, having team-taught a FYE course on race and gender—these subjects are often difficult for freshman to fully grasp. I feel that these topics need to be expanded from our current requirements (one of each flavor: DUS, ICUL, SJER) to requiring that each CIP have at least one of these areas deeply embedded (but visible!) in their proposed community. This would require students to engage in these discussions multiple times in varied classes. I respect those whom are teaching these classes and would not want to suggest that they are not valuable—but wouldn’t it be even better if it became something that the students continued to grapple with as a part of their chosen community?

  10. I wonder if we would be better served if we stopped thinking of the experiential/collaborative piece of Lager’s proposal as “communities in practice?” Lager has played around with other names, and indicated that they kept this name just as a placeholder until we come up with something else, and we all often refer to that as “what it is now called until we come up with something better.” But I think that continuing to refer to “communities” even as a placeholder keeps us all a bit stuck. I do not mean to dismiss those who loved the original concept, but I think the idea of setting up the requirement that students join a “community” as part of our curriculum has actually been preventing us from fully integrating and applying Arts and Science’s recommendations that Jane has urged us to do.

    • Arts and Sciences (A&S) found that prospective students see us too splintered, and so we need to work on developing a more inclusive and holistic sense of community. Using the name “communities” in our curriculum could reinforce the idea that Guilford is a compilation of subcommunities/cliques.

    • A&S recommended that we move toward a “major + passion” model. This to me suggests a relationship between the two, not that they are separate. Students ideally choose a major that they are passionate about. If we take the “major + passion” model, the experiential and collaborative piece suggested by Lager is something that helps extend and deepen the knowledge students gained in their major (I think Maia’s Cape Fear River Basin Program is an excellent example of this).

    • On the other hand, community suggests something that could stand alone from the major, and doesn’t really get at that “major + passion” integration. As a stand alone experience, such communities also necessitate a bigger footprint in the curriculum than we can provide without taking away from other key areas such as writing, language, diversity . Finally, such a big footprint discourages students from exploring different passions through elective courses or engaging in other “high impact practices” such as study abroad or internships or research not related directly to a students’ chosen “community.”

    I would urge us then to use the name “multidisciplinary team” as our placeholder to help us move away from the problems associated with the term “community” and move us closer to the A&S recommendations. I think multidisciplinary teams might actually be the exact language of A&S?

    • We can be true to the heart of Lager’s proposal and A&S if we say something along the lines of: “All students participate in multidisciplinary teams comprised of experiential and collaborative learning that culminates in a capstone project.” This also feels a bit more manageable and implementable (is that a word?) when I think of these teams having a connection with different majors, although I do not think we need to specify that at this point.

    • Also, multidisciplinary teams may not require such a large footprint. I believe that the AACU recommends 2 high impact practices as the minimum. And so 8 credits involved in multidisciplinary team seems like a good minimum to set. I know many of you (including Lager?) might be cringing at this, but if we think of these teams as extensions of the major that means that some of these teams will have pre-reqs, a professor within each students’ major might advise and recommend readings (like in Maia’s CFRB program), and some teams could require more than 8 credits. Plus, that doesn’t preclude students from being more involved or taking more team credits on their own (as in the CFRB program), but setting this 8-credit minimum would allow room for students to be involved in other high impact experiences, electives, and…

    • It would also allow more room for a more concerted focus on diversity and justice. It seems like most of us agree that these are important. It is possible that there are some who think that diversity and social justice are no longer critical areas that deserve any attention at all, but I have not heard anyone say that. The main disagreement seems to be on how best to include issues of diversity and justice, and a big part of the problem has been the lack of space in the curriculum. If space wasn’t so much of an issue, perhaps we could move to an analysis of different models based on best practices, research, and theory. Many have started doing that here on the moon room, but we haven’t really discussed this as a corporate faculty because we’ve focused so much on fitting it into the model that had 14-16 credits devoted to experiential/collaborative learning on one topic area.

    • If you’ve read this far, let me put in one more plug. If we had a more concerted focus on diversity and justice, it would align well with A&S’s recommendation of including a focus on ethical leadership. And the “multidisciplinary team” concept also fits a bit more with “leadership.”

    • And if you’ve read this far – wow, thanks!

  11. I like a lot of what you’re saying, Eva. I think the term CIP is perhaps a bit odd. I like the idea of an area of inquiry–or something along those lines; I think it would allow students to do experiential work both on campus and in the broader community and to explore a topic that is their “passion” (though I’m not a fan of that word, either!)