Liberal Education

Challenge and Response: Integrity and AAC&U's Reform Initiatives, 1985–1994

From the Archives: This article was originally published in Liberal Education in the summer of 1994, when the author was executive vice president of the association.

Ten years ago, AAC&U (then AAC) issued a landmark report, Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community. Anticipating the academy's sternest external critics by nearly a decade, Integrity offered a sweeping and incisive critique of curricular practice throughout higher education. "As for what passes as a college curriculum," said Integrity's authors in an often-quoted passage, "almost anything goes. We have reached a point at which we are more confident about the length of a college education than its content and purpose. . . . The curriculum has given way to a marketplace philosophy: it is a supermarket where students are shoppers and professors are merchants of learning."1

Despite the tone set by many such quotable phrases, Integrity's authors intended to be constructive as well as critical. Challenging the cafeteria ethos that by 1985 largely governed curricular and student decision making, they framed a broad agenda for educational change, an agenda applicable both to individual campuses and to the work of AAC&U as a whole. Higher education's academic leaders, argued Integrity, must work to

  1. "revive . . . faculty [responsibility] as a whole for the curriculum as a whole";2
  2. foster for every student, whatever the choice of major, a "minimum required curriculum [of] intellectual, aesthetic, and philosophic experiences . . . methods and processes, modes of access to understanding and judgment, that should inform all study";3
  3. restructure college majors to foster study-in-­depth, interdisciplinary learning, and overdue attention to the inherent limitations of any disciplinary framework;
  4. assess in new ways both program effectiveness and the quality of student learning;
  5. broaden and deepen graduate students' and faculty members' preparation for the profession of college teaching.

Since 1985, AAC&U as an association has focused extensively on each of Integrity's major constructive themes. AAC&U has also developed important initiatives on other topics developed in Integrity, especially its challenge to the traditional divide between liberal and professional learning and its argument for international and multicultural learning as component parts of "a minimum required curriculum."

Altogether, AAC&U has, over the past ten years, led more than two dozen funded projects involving several hundred institutions and thousands of faculty members in efforts to translate Integrity's recommendations into practice across higher education. As Integrity's ten-year anniversary approaches, it is time to review these various centers of educational initiative.

What have we accomplished through all this attention to curriculum, teaching, and learning? What are the various sites of activity, and how do they connect with one another? How would we rewrite Integrity today, after a decade of sustained attention to its recommendations? What remains to be addressed?

Faculty responsibility for the curriculum as a whole

Although Integrity largely avoided the conventional curricular architecture of "general education" and "majors," its call for attention to the curriculum "as a whole" intersected with a revival of concern for general education already gaining momentum as Integrity was published. National surveys suggest that more than 90 percent of colleges and universities demonstrated their concern with learning across the curriculum by undertaking general education reviews during the 1980s. AAC&U alone has implemented, since 1985, more than a dozen separate initiatives concerned with different aspects of general education. The projects have ranged from transcript studies of the "real curriculum" in over two hundred institutions, through general education projects on curriculum planning and implementation. Some AAC&U initiatives have dealt with general education requirements for all students; others with targeted approaches to general education for specific majors, such as engineering. (See listing printed below.) Since 1991, AAC&U has also sponsored the annual Asheville Institute for General Education, a week-long summer program, always oversubscribed, that serves institutional teams working on general education planning.

Out of all this work with institutions addressing general education, several lessons emerge. The first is the absolute necessity of local educational dialogue and invention. The curriculum is one arena in which it pays dividends to carefully redesign the wheel. Hundreds of institutions have used Integrity over the past ten years in the context of general education reviews. But no institution simply adopts a recommended framework for general learning. Each must go through a laborious examination of its own mission, resources, campus needs, and program history in order to craft locally owned, collegially meaningful goals for student learning.

Yet through the many varieties of local idiom, the second lesson from general education reform is that the direction recommended by Integrity now predominates, at least in statements of principle. Frederick Rudolph, emeritus professor of history at Williams College and one of Integrity's authors, notes that he and his colleagues self-consciously pitted themselves against "those who would furnish the mind [rather than] sharpen it, those for whom course content and subject matter were paramount." What matters most they thought, is not what subject matter is taught, but how it is experienced.4

Characteristically, faculty groups endorse this emphasis on capacities and ways of knowing as goals for all students' learning. Locally developed goals for general education almost always focus on what students can do with knowledge, rather than designated content per se. Discussions of the knowledge "most worth having," once a staple in curriculum debates, have become rare. In this sense, well-publicized debates such as Stanford's faculty struggle over the common course, Culture, Ideas, and Values, can be misleading. The Stanford debate was part of a discernible trend toward reviving a set of courses that all students take in common. But typically, this "true core" curriculum is almost never more than a handful of courses; at many institutions only one or two. And even within such designated "true core" courses, many institutions, including Stanford, set general course goals while allowing individual section instructors to differ significantly in their content and assignments. So, in core curricula too, broad educational goals, rather than specified content coverage, constitute the dominant trend.

A third lesson from general education reform is the intellectual benefit to faculty members of broad-based debates about what matters in college. Such overarching faculty dialogue becomes especially significant now that a generation of faculty is reaching retirement. Many faculty members now assuming positions of leadership within their institutions took their own first degrees in institutions where general education had become a formless list of distribution requirements, and their graduate degrees in departments characteristically uninvolved with the goals of "the curriculum as a whole." The national dialogue about general education has thus been an important source of professional development for faculty members who take an active role in the discussions.

Improving teaching and learning

Similarly, a decade of debate about the curriculum as a whole has provided an important context for the contemporary discussion about improving the quality of collegiate teaching and learning. Absent a clear focus on what students are expected to achieve in college, discussions of teaching always run the danger of featuring technique and pedagogical processes as ends in themselves. The broad-based campus debate about general goals for all students' learning helps faculty members develop new intentionality about specific courses. How does the first-year seminar contribute to students' analytical and communication skills? What progress should students have made in both arenas by the time they complete a capstone general education seminar? AAC&U's work on curricular projects over the past decade persuades us as an organization that improving teaching is most effectively addressed when it is clearly tied to particular curricular goals and processes.

The challenge now confronting campuses is to turn what have been topical discussions about general education into continuing forums for faculty attention to the "curriculum as a whole." Too many institutions assume that general education review is a cyclical experience, undertaken to launch a new curriculum and then concluded with a collective sigh of relief.

The dangers of this episodic engagement with curricular goals and practices are substantial. Without a continuing dialogue about what a requirement seeks to achieve and how well these goals are being met, an institution's new general education program may soon become little more than a rhetorical artifact of the catalog. Especially because curricula now emphasize how students should approach problems rather than what all students should know, faculty members need to work with one another and with findings from assessment studies to develop a shared expertise and new levels of continuing cooperation in fostering complex intellectual abilities across disparate courses and programs of study.

The final lesson from general education reform is the need for greater realism about what general education can and cannot contribute to educational integrity. Despite its usefulness in shaping broad-based educational dialogues, a decade of attention to students' intellectual development in college teaches us that general education cannot unilaterally create the curricular wholeness that many of Integrity's admirers envision.

It is time to distinguish—more than many campuses have—between general goals for collegiate learning and general education requirements. The goals typically espoused in general education reviews are simply too encompassing to be effectively fulfilled in the limited curricular time most institutions actually assign to their general course requirements. It is surprising that faculty committees across the country characteristically overlook this structural flaw in their carefully crafted recommendations for general education.

Take, for example, the first set of capacities recommended in Integrity's minimum required curriculum: inquiry, abstract logical thinking, critical analysis. Some version of this language is almost universally present in campus statements about general education. Yet complex capacities in inquiry, logic, and critical analysis cannot realistically be developed in one or two designated general education courses. As college curricula are now structured, students are most likely to develop sophisticated inquiry skills through their major programs, where they learn particular theories and subject matter well enough to be able to subject them to analysis and critical evaluation.

Campus leaders should beware, therefore, of too completely identifying attention to the curriculum as a whole with general education requirements. What is needed now are clearer connections between the work of general education and the work of particular majors. AAC&U addressed this point directly in The Challenge of Connecting Learning,5 a 1991 successor report to Integrity. The major has its own responsibility to foster general outcomes from college, Challenge suggests, and the "ethos of self-containment" that draws sharp lines of demarcation between general education and the major is increasingly problematic for those concerned with the quality of students' learning across the curriculum.

Several current AAC&U projects and open workshops now address these needed connections between general education and the major. Equally important, AAC&U is taking its commitment to integrate general and specialized education directly into the graduate departments where future faculty members are initially trained. Drawing impetus from an earlier AAC&U pilot project on graduate education funded by FIPSE, this new effort, Preparing Future Faculty, involves seventeen research universities in path-breaking efforts to broaden their graduate students' preparation as future faculty members.

With generous support from the Pew Charitable Trusts, Preparing Future Faculty links faculty members in graduate departments with colleagues from a broad range of collaborating institutions: comprehensive, liberal arts, and community colleges. The goal is to involve institutions where young faculty will eventually teach with graduate institutions in developing more realistic preparations for future faculty members. These new preparatory programs will focus on the educational challenges and questions most teaching faculty members now confront: goals for general learning, connections between majors and general education, students' disparate preparation and interests, ways of establishing connections across the curriculum that pay off in better learning. Led by Jerry Gaff, an AAC&U vice president who helped launch the national revival of general education in the early 1980s, this project honors Integrity's ultimate insight: that to reclaim the integrity of the curriculum, faculty members must come to think in entirely new ways about the nature and scope of their calling.

Restructuring majors

Integrity had especially stinging things to say about the lack of educational purpose and structure in college majors. "The major in most colleges is little more than a gathering of courses taken in one department, lacking structure and depth . . . or emphasizing content to the neglect of the essential style of inquiry on which the content is based. . . ."6

Following Integrity's analysis, AAC&U has worked extensively across several projects both on learning in arts and sciences majors and on liberal learning in such popular professional majors as engineering, business, and education. Since 1985, the association has sponsored eleven separate initiatives on college majors, four concerned with arts and sciences majors as a group, one on student learning in women's studies majors and minors, and half a dozen on liberal learning in education, engineering, and business studies.

Two themes dominate these efforts: a view of majors as highly intentional learning communities and an insistence that majors must foster integrative or connected learning. AAC&U's 1990 report on the arts and sciences major, The Challenge of Connecting Learning, succinctly identifies the connections between these themes. Integrity, it suggests, had unduly emphasized the metaphor of majors as primarily an experience of "study-in-depth," or mastery of a particular field of knowledge. The "depth" metaphor, Challenge's authors suggest, "conceals, rather than illuminates, the social dimensions of the major that are intrinsic to its special role in undergraduate learning."7

"Neither students nor faculty members," Challenge continues, "can inhabit the totality of the wide world of human knowledge. Recognizing this, the major invites students to enter a quite particular culture." This culture offers an initial "home" in which students can focus their intellectual inquiries, a community of peers with whom students can engage, and a faculty charged to care about specific "students' intellectual and personal explorations as well as their maturation."8

The major as a "home" for liberal learning, Challenge argues in its deliberately revisionist restatement of Integrity, has multiple responsibilities: an obligation to help students learn a particular field, but an equally important obligation to help students connect their learning across disparate fields. "To fulfill its role in liberal learning, the major also must structure conversations with the other cultures represented in the academy, conversations that more nearly reflect the diversities within our world and require patient efforts of translation. Ultimately, the goal of the major should be the development of students' capacities for making connections."9

On a variety of fronts, AAC&U is now working to translate these premises into practice. One current project, a FIPSE-funded campus initiative on Re-Forming Arts and Sciences Majors, focuses on developing majors as effective learning communities. Through both national workshops and collaborative efforts in more than sixty departments, this project has worked with faculty members to reconsider the educational purposes of introductory, intermediate, and culminating study within their specific programs. Because most of the institutions in the Reforming Majors project are veterans of recent general education reforms, this initiative is also working on ways of connecting newly revised goals for both general education and majors programs.

Under the leadership of Joseph S. Johnston, Jr., one of AAC&U's vice presidents for programs, several projects on liberal learning in professional majors have explored additional ways of fostering integrative liberal learning. Integrity challenged the unproductive gap that still prevails between liberal and preprofessional studies and AAC&U's initiatives on professional majors have tried to close that divide.

Drawing on our systematic study of teacher preparation curricula, Those Who Can, AAC&U's 1988 Rockefeller Foundation–funded report on teacher education challenges the Holmes Group's influential recommendation that future teachers should first learn a subject through a liberal arts major and then, in a separate graduate program in education, learn how to teach that subject.10 Instead, Those Who Can suggests, the academy should create interdisciplinary preparatory courses that recognize the interconnections between learning the content and methodology of a field and learning how to teach that field. Such integrative courses, drawing together disciplinary subject matter and knowledge about teaching and learning, would deepen students' understanding of their own subject in a way that education courses, taken out of context, could scarcely hope to achieve.

With subsequent funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, AAC&U created in 1992 a national network of institutions working to develop integrative curricular designs that connect liberal arts subject matter with pedagogical preparation appropriate to the subject. A recent issue of Liberal Education (Winter 1994) reports on the approaches these experimenting institutions are taking to the challenge of future teachers' integrative learning.

Johnston and a network of national advisors have devised other approaches to integrative learning for engineering and business majors. Recognizing that engineering students typically take but a handful of quite unrelated courses in the humanities and social sciences, AAC&U worked with the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) to explore ways of focusing and enriching engineering students' liberal learning through humanities and social sciences offerings. The resulting 1988 study, Unfinished Design, offers a variety of strategies for broadening engineering students' understanding of the societal context in which they will practice their profession.11

Unfinished Design describes a series of model liberal studies programs developed especially for engineering students that explore the effects of science and technology on societies past and present. But recognizing that not every institution has the resources to develop a comprehensive and integrative science and society curriculum, the report also recommended teaching engineering students themselves how to plan thematic liberal studies concentrations that are both individually meaningful and educationally coherent. Such topics as engineering and aesthetics; cognitive science; public policy or environment; energy, and resources, Unfinished Design suggests, would both focus engineering students' general education and significantly enrich their professional consciousness. Whatever the particular curricular strategy, Unfinished Design argues, institutions should help engineering students experience the humanities and social sciences as resources with their own focus and coherence, not simply as a set of arbitrary requirements, unconnected and unconnectable to students' most compelling interests.

Business, the most frequently selected college major in the country, has also been an important focus for AAC&U projects on the major. Over the past five years, AAC&U has worked in close and continuous cooperation with the American Assembly of Colleges and Schools of Business on opportunities for integrative learning presented by business's new involvement in the global village. Four separate projects sponsored by KPMG Peat Marwick Foundation have supported faculty teams from both arts and sciences and business schools in collaborative efforts to plan international curricula. Some campuses in these AAC&U/AACSB projects have developed focused cultural immersions for their business students; others have worked on course clusters that connect business and international topics. Many are placing new importance on language study, with predictably positive effects on students' interest in that perennially neglected topic.12

As all these examples suggest, AAC&U's work on specific majors views students' specialized interest as a potential matrix for integrating, extending, and generalizing knowledge. Disciplines are important, AAC&U's approach suggests, but so too are connections and translations. Integrity's legacy across these diverse initiatives is an emerging recognition that, to fulfill their role in liberal education, major programs must assume a new level of responsibility for fostering students' competence in integrating different aspects of their college learning.

Program coherence

In recommending a "minimum required curriculum," Integrity's authors tacitly assumed both that most students take their degrees in a single institution and that faculty attention to the curriculum as a whole would therefore increase the coherence and purposefulness of each student's education.

The mobility of contemporary students challenges us to rethink this conceptual framework for educational coherence. Across the country, transfer has become a common rather than an exceptional dimension of college experience. With students increasingly likely to compose their baccalaureate degrees with courses and credits taken at multiple institutions, it seems clear we must think in new ways about educational purpose and intellectual progress.

In this context, Integrity's focus on fundamental capacities—"methods and processes, modes of access to understanding and judgment"—provides an important framework for the next big challenge in higher education: an era of fresh interinstitutional attention to what students ought to achieve in college, wherever they matriculate and no matter the number of institutions attended before they complete their studies.

AAC&U is currently seeking funding to develop such an interinstitutional framework for baccalaureate learning. The proposed initiative, intended as a successor to Integrity, is the logical next step in AAC&U's continuing effort to define and create models for baccalaureate learning that reflect the best contemporary thinking about undergraduate education, the characteristics of the student body, patterns of college attendance, the diversity of institutions, and societal expectations about what college graduates should know and be able to do.

Like the recommendations in Integrity, this proposed new initiative will avoid prescriptions for specific content and coverage. AAC&U believes firmly that local faculty strengths and expertise must continue to guide campus judgments about curricular and course content. Rather, this new baccalaureate degree review will focus on the capacities students need for participation in a complex world, on curricular structures and relationships appropriate to contemporary educational goals, and on ways of demonstrating what students are learning across institutional boundaries.

As we undertake this new look at the meaning of the degree, Integrity's list of capacities for a minimum required curriculum will need to be updated. Integrity makes no reference, for example, to technology or the visual and computer revolutions. Its multicultural text is both outdated and surprisingly silent on languages. Its recommendations for connecting theoretical and practical learning could be usefully extended. Integrity is also notably inattentive to higher education's role in the normative and practical questions confronting our pluralistic democracy.

These needed updatings aside, Integrity's fundamental emphasis on capacities rather than "coverage" remains a compelling framework for fostering shared understandings of what students ought to achieve in college in this era of increasing student mobility on the road to a degree. With a decade of curricular restructuring to guide us, we can now apply this framework more deliberatively to the work of particular parts of the curriculum: to introductory general education, to the focused work of majors and internships, to advanced or integrative general education, and to the connections among all of these. Equally important, we can apply this framework to assessment, distinguishing among capacities that should be demonstrated before advanced work is undertaken, and capacities that can be best demonstrated in the context of a student's particular interests and focused studies.

AAC&U, like higher education as a whole, remains at a very preliminary stage in its work on assessing learning. Most of our work has been done in the context of specific fields, arts and sciences majors, and an important pilot project on assessing learning in women's studies programs. But as students become increasingly mobile across higher education, we will not be able to delay much longer in developing assessments that communicate across institutional boundaries as well as within programs. Indeed, we may need shortly to borrow for assessment an innovation that Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has urged for career planning. Reich argues that unemployment centers should now become reemployment centers, with programs to help workers in assessment, self-assessment, and planning. Something comparable needs to be established across higher education so that students dropping in, stopping out, taking multiple majors and/or frequently interrupted degrees can find useful periodic assistance in asking fundamental questions: What do I need to know now, personally, societally, and professionally? How much have I already learned, and how can I demonstrate it? How can I build on previous learning to move forward with my most important objectives?

Integrity's emphasis on a minimum required curriculum for every student provided an important first step toward developing useful advice to learners asking such questions at transitional moments in their learning. AAC&U's next decade of work on curriculum, teaching, and learning will help us learn better how to use assessment and students' self-assessment as integral supports in the work of higher learning.

A Decade of Curricular Leadership

Integrity in the College Curriculum (1985) identifies nine dimensions of liberal learning to be addressed in any liberal arts program, regardless of a student’s choice of major. These essential experiences have been used across the country as a framework for general education review and curriculum planning.

A New Vitality in General Education (1988). A complementary perspective to the Integrity report, it emphasizes changes that campuses need to make in curricular planning, teaching, assessment, and institutional leadership, if general education programs are to fulfill their stated goals. The report highlights the importance of institutional leadership to help both students and faculty make a serious and intellectually rewarding investment in general education courses and programs. Filled with specific examples drawn from across the country, A New Vitality is a road map documenting ways to bridge the gap between educational goals and effective learning.

Structure and Coherence (1989) reports on transcript studies from thirty-five different campuses and provides concrete evidence of the lack of breadth and depth in many students’ courses of study. Through research now under way, AAC&U, in cooperation with the Institute for Research in Higher Education (IRHE) at the University of Pennsylvania, is analyzing transcript data from a nationally representative sample of one hundred institutions.

An Engineering Student’s Guide to the Humanities and Social Sciences (1988) and Unfinished Design (1988) explore ways to bring intentionality and intellectual coherence to engineering students’ general education in the humanities and social sciences. The reports provide suggestions to help students construct clusters of general education courses that serve both their professional development and their liberal learning. They address both institutions willing to make programmatic changes in liberal learning for engineering students as well as those where advisors will continue to work within a framework of loosely structured general education guidelines.

The AAC&U project Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts and Sciences Major issued a report in 1990, The Challenge of Connecting Learning, that questioned the educational value of the common distinction between the major (depth) and general education (breadth). The report proposes that majors and advanced general education can work together to help students develop the capacity to translate learning from one context to others.

Proceedings of the 1991 Asheville Institute on General Education and a companion sixty-four-minute videotape, “The Heart of the Matter,” present research and recommendations on general education by scholars such as Alexander Astin, Robert Pollack, and Sheila Tobias and from an array of institutions that have successfully restructured their general education curricula.

Engaging Cultural Legacies created a national network of sixty-five institutions to work on developing general education course sequences that help students develop a critical understanding of their own cultural inheritance and those of other people. Supported by two grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the project published Core Curriculum and Cultural Pluralism: A Guide for Campus Planners in 1993.

Strong Foundations: Twelve Principles for Effective General Education Programs (1994) builds on the work being done across the country to reform general education and, learning from these accomplishments, constructs the means to sustain their vitality. The project examined the experiences of seventeen selected institutions with different general education programs; their insights were distilled over two years of collaborative effort to identify the principles and describe an array of models and practices that animate and extend effectiveness. The results are published in Strong Foundations.

Current Initiatives

The Asheville Institute on General Education, co-sponsored by AAC&U and the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA), is an annual week-long event held on the UNCA campus. Approximately twenty institutions are competitively selected to send five-person teams to the institute to study particular aspects of general education and work, with the help of nationally recognized consultants, on a reform project they have conceived. In 1994, the institute focused on interdisciplinary general education. The 1995 institute will address the connections between diversity and democracy as they shape general goals for liberal learning. Project Directors: Joseph Johnston and Jane Spalding.

American Commitments: Diversity, Democracy, and Liberal Learning (1993) is AAC&U’s Ford Foundation–supported, multi-project examination of liberal learning and campus ethos in a diverse society. In dialogue with educators throughout the country, a national panel of leading scholars and academic administrators is framing recommendations on higher education’s role in preparing citizens for a diverse democracy, including reports on the intercultural campus and diversity in the curriculum. Project Director: Carol Geary Schneider.

American Commitments—Faculty and Curriculum Development Clusters (1993). This general education project, supported by the Ford Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, has linked twenty-two “resource institutions” with forty-three “planning institutions” to work on faculty study and curriculum development on US democratic and cultural pluralism. Consultants from the resource institutions are providing models and assistance in the curriculum development effort. A grant from the NEH supports a ten-day institute at which over two hundred faculty members will study contemporary scholarship on US diversity and democracy. The project is developing an interactive “map” of diversity curricula and pedagogics as well as bibliography and curricular exemplars. Project Director and Co-Director: Caryn McTighe Musil and Gwen Dungy.

The Curriculum Assessment Service (1994). AAC&U and its partner, the Institute for Research on Higher Education (IRHE) at the University of Pennsylvania, have recently completed an analysis of student course selections based on the transcripts of l991 graduates from a nationally representative sample of eighty-one institutions. The resulting Curriculum Data Base will be utilized for further detailed studies over the next two years. AAC&U and IRHE will share the results of these studies, upon request, as they become available. Project Director: Joseph Johnston.

The Network for Academic Renewal: General Education Workshops (1992). Drawing on resources and colleague networks developed through grant-supported projects, AAC&U annually offers workshops throughout the United States on curriculum, teaching, learning, and academic leadership. The workshop series regularly addresses topics in general education. Project Director: Jerry Gaff.

To respond to this article, e-mail, with the author's name on the subject line.


1. Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, 1990), 2.

2. Ibid., 9

3. Ibid., 15.

4. Frederick Rudolph, Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992).

5. The Challenge of Connecting Learning: Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts and Sciences Major (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, 1991).

6. Integrity, 2.

7. Challenge, 4.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., 5.

10. Those Who Can: Undergraduate Programs to Prepare Arts and Sciences Majors for Teaching (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, 1988).

11. Joseph S. Johnston, Jr., Susan Shaman, and Robert Zemsky, Unfinished Design: The Humanities and Social Sciences in Undergraduate Engineering Education (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, 1988).

12. Joseph S. Johnston, Jr., and Richard J. Edelstein, Beyond Borders: Profiles in International Education (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, 1993).

Carol Geary Schneider is president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). This article was originally published in Liberal Education in the summer of 1994, when the author was executive vice president of the association.

Previous Issues