Faculty Review Committees

Review Committees and Certification Committees are central to the concept of the CIS.  Every proposed individualized major will be reviewed twice: once, when it is first proposed, by a "faculty review committee"; and a second time, when the work of the major is completed, by a "faculty certification committee." 

Each committee will be convened by the director of the CIS, and will include the student's adviser, a second faculty member with expertise relevant to the proposed subject matter(s) of the individualized major, the CIS program coordinator, and a student pursuing an individualized major. 

Each committee will hold a public meeting with the student whose proposal is under review.  A committee may approve the proposed individualized major, require amendments to it, or decline to approve it.  A new committee will be convened to review each proposed individualized major. 

The committees are a critical way of insuring that students' proposals meet standards of coherence, breadth, and depth like those that prevail in the college's established majors.  They are also a way of insuring that students get sound advice from faculty with relevant expertise at the very outset of their individualized majors.  And they are a way of insuring that whatever good ideas arise from the creativity of motivated students in conversation with their teachers and advisers can be spread around the campus. 

Unlike some committees, these may also be rewarding (even fun).  The responsibilities of committee members are simple.  If invited to serve on a review committee, faculty are expected to read the student's proposal and supporting materials carefully, and to judge whether the proposal is feasible within the available resources of the college; is faithful to the idea of a liberal arts college of the church; meets college standards for coherence, breadth, and depth; and does not simply duplicate an existing program. 

Faculty Review Committee meetings are organized and scheduled by the program coordinator.  The CIS seeks to insure that over the course of time nearly every member of the faculty becomes involved in reviewing student proposals. 

Standards

The CIS and the Faculty Review Committees will be guided by prevailing standards of excellence for a departmental major at St. Olaf, and by the following criteria: 

1. A student's plan must meet usual St. Olaf standards for the quantity of academic experience constituting a major--generally the equivalent of twelve units of academic work (including two units devoted to a senior project). 

2. A student's plan must include evidence that it will provide  a. a foundation of skills, concepts, and methods appropriate to the proposed field of study, 
b. opportunities for exploration and development of skills, sub-fields, and special topics to enrich the major, and 
c. opportunities for significant advanced study culminating in an integrative senior project. 

3. A student's plan must include an integrative project completed during the senior year.  The integrative project must be a sustained exploration of the subject matter, guided by familiarity with appropriate methods, and permitting a reflective reexamination of material encountered earlier in the major.  The integrative project may take any of several forms, including for example an independent senior project, laboratory or field research, other empirical research, a substantial essay prepared for a capstone course, an intellectual autobiography, or a portfolio of work from the major coupled with a critical essay explicating the coherence of the work. 

4. A student's plan must include significant advanced work, usually four or more Level III courses. 

What is a Major?

A review committee may also consider the broader role of a major in the project of liberal education.  For example, 

1. A good major develops a cognitive "home" from which to begin to interpret the rest of the world--a base of experiences and knowledge, and fluency with an effective vocabulary and methods of interpreting evidence, in relation to which unfamiliar subjects may become meaningful. 

2. A good major develops the capacity for recognizing and interpreting connections, or the capacity for applying learning from one context to another.

3. A good major develops the capacity for analyzing evidence and arguments, and interpreting experiences. 

4. A good major develops knowledge of contingencies that condition knowledge, of the origins and histories of ideas and methods. 

5. A good major includes "reflexivity"--the experience of returning to something learned in the past to reexamine it in light of further learning. 

6. A good major includes learning in community, both by situating new knowledge with respect to the expertise of others, and by promoting the role of conversation in the learning process. 

7. A good major cultivates the capacity for relating academic learning to the wider world, to public issues and personal experience.

8. A good major includes a culminating opportunity to synthesize different parts of a student's experiences in the major. 

Back to the top.