Aristotle in the "Nicomachean Ethics" finds that, "a consideration of the prominent types of life shows that people of superior refinement and of active disposition identify happiness with honour." This observation would seem to bode well for an Honors Program, except that Aristotle then goes on to say, "but (this) seems too superficial to be what we are looking for..." After our three years together I recommend that each of the members of our Honors Program receive the distinction of Honors at graduation, but I would say that in fact our work together has emphasized a very different point by Aristotle, that "we are inquiring not in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good, since otherwise our inquiry would have been of no use." Given this caveat and context, I am delighted to review some of the more specific goals and outcomes of this the very first Three Year Honors Program.

Much of the program details have emerged during the three years, but the general aim has remained much the same. In the April, 1994, letter recruiting students to apply for the Honors Program, I wrote: "Students who plan to go on to graduate school, and perhaps to prepare for teaching at the college level would benefit greatly from this program." Although I did not expect each student to necessarily pursue becoming a college professor, I quite consciously was making a distinction between what I thought was a necessary background to become a successful college teacher instead of a university professor. The distinction in my own mind is that a college professor must be very successful in the areas of teaching, research, and service. From the beginning I had no interest in a "pull out" Honors program. Rather, I was anxious that the Honors students provide leadership in any number of college programs both academic and co-curricular. My ardent hope, which I believe has been realized, is that this cadre of students has in some small way helped raise the standards, elevate the expectations, and set a faster pace in the many areas of college life. Sometime during the second year of the program I came to the realization, one that seems obvious now, that the Honors project was NOT their final project. Each student was the Honors project. And in fact the best way to represent the success of each student was very comparable to how we evaluate each faculty member for the tenure or promotion--the Faculty Data form. While each student has undertaken a worthy Honors project and seen it to completion, thus better preparing each for the demands of graduate work, the emphasis in our program has been beyond the mere demands of specialized scholarship, with an eye to the importance of participating meaningfully within the fullness of a college community. I believe that you will find a review of both the Honors equivalent of the Faculty Data form and the final project demonstrate clearly how truly special this group of students has been.

The first year I emphasized that the Honors Group was a "confederacy." I wanted each student to have a sense of colleagueship. Having read Aristotle on friendship we were reasonably clear that the friendships were not the sort of thing that could be organized in a program, but that we could, nonetheless, be helpful to one another. The first year course themes included: 1) The Hidden Curriculum; 2) writing skills; 3) an overview of higher education; 4) the distinction between High Culture and Popular Culture; 5) the study of Culture; 6) an emphasis on student initiative and the search for inspiration; 7) use of Technology (e.g. E-mail and CD-Roms). In these regards students were introduced to: a) the article by Jean Anyon on social class and the curriculum; b) two approaches to writing: Strunk and White, Christensen’s Rhetoric of a Sentence; c) a brief history of higher education including information on the liberal arts (quadrivium and trivium) and development of the university; d) articles on the claims and limitations of high culture and popular culture (and encouragement to make time for experiences for both as part of the college experience); e) using "impressionism" to study "Culture" particularly English Culture; f) expecting students to budget time for "Honors" inquiries according to personal curiosity, g) regular e-mail messages among students and between professor and students. (Perhaps needless to say, it was quite a plateful for only four units of work for the year.)

The summer after that first year was a hardship and a blessing. Some students had competing plans for the summer. The original plan for Honors was that students must attend that summer. Indeed the students who did attend felt unanimously that the summer made for more time together and was very beneficial in helping bring everyone together in ways that had not yet happened. (Many went on a trip to Yosemite together as well.) "My" decision was that students who did participate in another Pepperdine program, and who either completed the option we had developed to a "journal," or were in weekly contact with us via e-mail, could stay in the program. A few students did drop Honors at that point, but I think did so most amicably. That first summer was also a transition in terms of how I envisioned developments over the three years. In my mind and plans I envisioned that the first year would emphasize the large group experience, the second year small groups, and the third year individual work on projects. In that same regard I saw the first year as the time for a "funding of experiences" within the college environment and as a time to develop individual initiative. The second year would be a time for these prospective educators to develop curriculum and teach. The third year would emphasize individual scholarship. By the end of the second semester I was convinced that the students had participated widely in the entire college experience, but that it was time to start doing some focusing. I had also discovered near the end of the first semester that the concept of "Culture" had been very useful in integrating all the students’ interests in a common theme. "What does it mean to be cultured?" I invited students to read a variety of books on that subject, and possibly complete book reviews, on books ranging from Tofler’s Future Shock to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed to Hirsch’s Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. I also had them break into small groups to develop presentations of aspects of culture. Such presentations were made that summer to the entire Honors’ class and included topics in Dance, Etiquette, Jazz. I felt that this worked so well as an introduction to both curriculum planning and teaching that it was the model for what we continued the second year. (The level of performance for this no credit course was some of the strongest testimony to tell how well the program was beginning to work.)

The Fall semester of the second year had students again working in curriculum planning groups. For example, one group worked on what Spanish language skills we would need and what knowledge of sites we would want to have for our Second Summer field trip from London to Spain. Another group worked on developing a Music Appreciation curriculum. These groups continued our interest in "Culture" in a more specific application. The second semester we became much more focused on the approaching term in London. The students had to plan to teach a lesson on English British Films. This preparation ended up being very helpful not only to each of these students, but to the entire group in London that subsequent summer. Having been to three European programs, the level of preparation for what was to be found in Europe was tremendously improved.

The summer in London was a joy to behold. We reaped the benefits of our hard work. We did not meet separately as a group. The house was ours! Ha! In this regard I think a personal "testimony" is most telling. Just prior to arriving in London I had shattered my knee in Heidelberg. I was in great pain and had some apprehension about having to return home for surgery. I was not in position to "work" my London group into a cohesive Whole. No fear. Although I doubt other students in the house knew which of our students were in the honors program per se, the Honors students, without coaxing, simply took over the responsibility for creating a tremendous atmosphere within the program. I will also add that I doubt that I will ever have a better class than my Great Books V class.

The third year, and final year for a majority of our students, emphasized their individual projects. The format here was individual tutorials. My emphasis on the selection of these projects was that they were academically defensible and stemmed from the student’s own interests and strengths. The variety of the ten student projects was most varied.

The nature of their projects does to some extent evidence the influence of my own doctoral advisor, Elliot Eisner. Eisner often mentioned that there were numerous worthy "icons" other than term papers that could be used to evidence learning. As former President of The American Educational Research Association, he has also been a strong proponent of artistic modes of inquiry and ways of learning. (By the way, the Seaver College forms for "Proposals for Reassigned Time" were very helpful to students in defining their projects.)

Eisner has repeatedly advocated the use of film or video in conducting educational research and evaluation. Charlie Park has undertaken extensive videotaping of the Honors program and has converted that footage into an educational evaluation of the program.

Jesse Covington has conducted his own evaluation of the program based on similar assumptions as defined by Eisner, and has presented his findings in writing. For both Park and Covington the approach is qualitative instead of quantitative, artistic instead of scientific, and emphasizes their own roles of inquirer as using themselves as the instruments. (This approach does not discount the more traditional forms of inquiry, but does maintain that this approach helps establish a greater depth of perspective.)

Cory King’s research about women in the churches of Christ born before The Korean War who earned doctorates, also benefits from the work done in artistic modes of inquiry. While her questionnaires and interviews have been more deliberately systematic, her interest in having her respondents "tell their stories" is based on relatively recent work on the benefits of story telling as a method of codifying knowledge.

Joe Pohlot continues this creative bent towards scholarship. Pohlot is our resident electronic media expert. He has undertaken two separate projects. He created a "professional journal" on the World Wide Web, "A Social Science Perspective on Film," (which will be an ongoing journal). He also completed an interactive CD-ROM for teaching of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning through the use of film clips from "A Man For All Season."

Kevin Carlson also continues this artistic and creative orientation to scholarship. His decision to undertake the one-man-show, "Vincent," also reflects our ongoing interest in the relationship of popular culture and high culture. This play is based on the letters of Vincent van Gogh and his brother, Theo. Carlson’s choice also reflects the influence of his Great Books background in the "great ideas."

Carla Eason, who has been an editor of "The Expressionist," has been writing and keeping a portfolio of her own poetry and short stories. Ashley Maples, a Communications major and member of the Pepperdine Ambassador’s Council among her many activities, has undertaken a series of five related speeches that will include a try-out for the graduation speech and a dinner speech at our final banquet.

Jon Swanson, Mandy Webb, and Kellie Martin have undertaken more conventional papers as their final projects. All three evidence the influence of their Great Books backgrounds. Swanson was surprised to find no evidence that any of America’s Medical Schools have a "Philosophy of Medicine" course (although they usually have fairly specific courses on ethical practices). Swanson has undertaken a Great Books/Ideas paper on the philosophy of medicine. Martin has also taken advantage of the great ideas approach to knowledge by utilizing Plato to explain what Keat’s meant by Beauty and Truth. Webb, who works as easily with abstractions as any student I have ever had, has undertaken a working paper on Philosophy of Art. (I admit selfish interests here in that her paper is instrumental to my own work in the Art of Curriculum Development, but also beneficial to her in that she has carved out her own niche in an area not ordinarily covered in our undergraduate Philosophy degree.)

I truly believe the program was extraordinarily successful for the ten who finished the program. From the beginning I felt that this was an experiment and that participation was strictly voluntary. I had a vision for what "Honors" could be, but did not necessarily think it would be for everyone. We started with twenty-two and finished with only ten. I feel badly when we lose any student from Seaver College, but I never felt this program demanded retention. That three of students who left are enrolled in my Great Books IV class this semester is an indication that their leaving the program was strictly because of other worthy priorities. Without giving names I would like to indicate the primary reason each person had for leaving the program.

1) Dropped Honors and Pepperdine for a year due to illness

2) Left for financial reasons

3) Chose independent language study Abroad the first summer

4) Athletics, a Greek organization, and Honors was too much

5) Left Seaver for personal reason unrelated to Pepperdine

6) Chose to go to a different European program primarily because of the major

7) A last minute "replacement" on a look-see basis, who had not applied for Honors, did not continue.

8) Left Seaver saying she wanted "to go to a Christian College."

9) Dropped ostensibly to work on an independent movie.

10) Graduated in two years and started a Master’s Program in Religion at Pepperdine.

11) Dropped at the end of the first year with plans to spend the second year in European Programs, but also having expressed some dissatisfaction with the program.

12) Three students never actually started the program, one because of music performance time conflicts, one science major with transfer work would not get any credits from Great Books, and another Science major had Lab conflicts.

In truth, I felt only one of these students was making a mistake given their own priorities and needs. Nonetheless, I have spent much time reflecting on the significance of some students leaving, some staying. Beyond the practical reasons that each students had for leaving, I do think that I can identify two underlying themes to distinguish the two groups. My original concept for an Honors student was to develop students who might very well become college teachers. I truly believe that the group who stayed are far more likely to go on to academic careers than the group that left. I also think that on the whole the group that stayed either preferred, or came to prefer what Eisner describes as the "spider web" model of curriculum. He contrasts that model with the "staircase" model. Both models have value. The staircase model emphasizes logical and sequential progress to a preconceived goal. The spider web model emphasizes that all knowledge is one and that the key is to develop student interest, curiosity, and tolerance for ambiguity. My strong impression, looking back, is that this distinction, with one exception, divides the two groups.

Finally, I would like to note some personal benefits. The first year was a huge challenge. Each of these students had been a superstar in high school and the interpersonal competition at first was very intense. The most conspicuous moment of group tension came virtually at the end of the last class of the first year (and as it happens was caught on videotape). After that I found that the entire program had stimulated me to write more professional articles than I had been writing previously, that I looked forward to seeing each of them as colleagues as well as students, that I enjoyed an unprecedented sense of scholarly community. I asked them to share peak experiences of their faculty data forms. I would note that my own include 1) the students assuming my role in caring for the House at 56 Prince’s Gate while I was injured; 2) receiving the "faculty data" forms and seeing the evidence of how the group has been so successful throughout the college community; 3) the great Great Books V class in London; 4) the very different relationships I had with each of these marvelous individuals.

Most respectfully submitted,