Department Chair and Program Director Guide

Section Eight – Review of Academic Departments and Programs

Purpose of the Review – 8:1

A review is an opportunity for the department, Provost, and Deans to consider the department’s program and curriculum, assess its strengths, areas for growth, and plans for the future. This review helps departments and programs to see how they are doing in terms of their strategic plans. This review process has been developed in consultation with the Faculty Senate and the Department Chairs and Program Directors, in response to a request from the Shared Governance Working Group on Curriculum in 2015.

This multi-purpose process is intended to:

  1. Ensure that Gustavus Adolphus College offers majors, minors, and programs of recognized excellence that support the institutional mission, meet the needs of students, and contribute to the College’s overall excellence;
  2. Reflect the College’s principles of shared governance;
  3. Provide quantitative and qualitative information that, when taken in aggregate, can inform the College’s leadership as it makes decisions about resource allocation; and
  4. Strengthen communication among members of the faculty and administration, helping them to be more nimble and prepared both to respond to sudden adverse conditions (e.g. declining enrollment), and/or exciting opportunities for growth (e.g. grants or gifts toward the academic program).

An initial round of reviews will involve all departments/programs and take place within a three-year period in order to provide an overall picture of campus offerings and to ensure that the four-stage process is effective for all departments/programs. The initial round of reviews will also provide a necessary baseline for future comparison, giving the Provost and members of departments/programs an opportunity to identify and agree upon appropriate benchmarks.

At the end of the three-year initial round of reviews, all of the materials will be reviewed in their totality by the Provost’s Office leadership team and the Faculty Senate with an eye toward whether the objective of the process has been met and to identify and recommend any necessary changes. Then, the process will become embedded into a five and ten-year review process. The ten-year review process will involve external evaluators.

Process – 8:2

Stage 1: Data Gathering (Office of the Provost)

Review of each major, minor, or program will begin with the Provost’s Office. In consultation with Department Chairs/Program Directors, the Provost will identify the type of quantitative and qualitative data needed for a successful review process. The Provost will also ask what data is most useful for each department/program, as it seeks to answer questions regarding faculty load and service to majors/minors and the broader college; such questions may include: How many departmental courses are taught exclusively for majors and minors? How many non-major general education courses or courses required for other interdisciplinary programs are taught by department/program faculty? This part of the process will be particularly important in the initial round of reviews. In subsequent reviews, the Provost and a department will begin with the established set of data; although, changes can be negotiated as needed.

Subsequent to feedback from Department Chairs/Program Directors about the types of data identified, the Provost’s Office will collaborate with the Registrar’s Office, the Office of Institutional Research, Human Resources, and other campus offices to collect the necessary quantitative data. The Provost will present these data to the department or program for use, interpretation, and possible correction. This information will be shared with the department or program by September 15 of the academic year of the review. These data will address the following questions:

  1. What is the total enrollment of students in courses associated with each major or minor within the department/program, total number of majors/minors, and total number of graduates for the past five years?
  2. What are the trends nationally and regionally regarding student interest and enrollment in this particular major, minor, or program? What is the interest-level of current and prospective Gustavus students in this program?
  3. What is the external demand for a particular major, minor, or program?
    1. What external indicators are there to show the need for and attractiveness of the major, minor, or program?
    2. What are the career prospects and job placement for those who graduate with this major, minor, or program? What are the trends over time?

Stage 2, Part 1: Generating the Narrative (Department/Program)

After receiving the information collected in Stage One and providing corrections (as needed), the department/program (working from its most recent review) will provide brief answers (approximately 3,000 words or less in total) to the following questions. We anticipate that this work will be conducted during the fall semester.

I. History, Development, and Aims of the Major, Minor, or Program
  • When and why was the major, minor, or program initially established? What were its initial aims and expectations?
  • How does the department currently articulate its overall mission, aims, and expectations?
II. Relationship of the Major, Minor, or Program to other Programs and the College’s Aims, Mission, and Current Strategic Plan
  • How does the major, minor, or program serve the aims and mission of the College?
  • How does the major, minor, or program promote the College’s current strategic plan?
  • How does the major, minor, or program fit into and strengthen the College’s broader curriculum?
III. Evidence of the Strength and Benefits of your Major, Minor, or Program

Note: Qualitative and quantitative data needed by departments will be discussed with the Provost in Stage One. However, this section of the process leaves room for changes or modifications.

  • Please provide additional quantitative measures that your department/program uses to measure the strengths and benefits of your major, minor, or program. Forms of quantitative evidence might include: test scores on nationally standardized instruments; grants; awards; number of students who were admitted to graduate school; or number of graduates who were certified or licensed in their professions.
  • Please provide additional qualitative measures that your department/program uses to determine the strength and benefits of your major, minor, or program. Forms of qualitative evidence might include: surveys of current students; letters from or surveys of alumni; survey responses from employers; or student exit interviews.
  • What have you learned from your previous efforts to measure the benefits of your major, minor, or program?
IV. Current Strengths and Challenges of the Major, Minor, or Program
  • Please describe how the major, minor, or program meets its aims and achieves excellence in the relevant field or discipline. Please describe weaknesses/deficiencies within the major/minor/program.
  • Please provide a brief summary of recent efforts related to your departmental student learning outcomes, including determination of whether the student learning outcomes are are still appropriate or require revision. (Note: The Provost will provide the department’s most recent assessment data and reports associated with each of the departmental student learning outcomes.)
  • When was the last time your major, minor, or program was changed? Please provide the context and rationale behind the change (e.g. changing needs of current or prospective students, changes to your field of study).
V. Envisioning New Approaches or Opportunities that will Strengthen the College
  • What primary changes in your current major, minor, or program, if any, would strengthen both your department/program and the overall excellence of the College?
  • What additional resources, if any, are needed to make these changes? (Resources could include equipment, facilities, computer software, supplies, student research assistants, additional faculty or staff, web design and marketing, etc.)
  • In what ways could your major be strengthened in the absence of additional resources? Please explain.
  • Assuming that all tenure-line faculty in your department remain at the College, please creatively envision ways to strengthen the overall excellence of the College, outside your current department/program, that build on your faculty’s particular areas of expertise. Are there new programs that would greatly serve the College and build on the strengths of current faculty within your department/program? Are there new ways that members of your department/program might partner with other departments to strengthen college offerings and attract more students to Gustavus?

Stage 2, Part 2: Selecting External Evaluators (Department/Program)

If your department/program has not had an external evaluation in the last eight years or if the department/program or the Provost's Office deems that an external perspective would be valuable, two external evaluators will be engaged for the review process. If the review involves external evaluation, please follow the instructions present in Stage Two, Part Two of this guide, as well as section 8.3-8.5 for the logistical details of hosting an external evaluation. If external evaluation is not part of your review cycle this year, please continue onto stage three of the review process.

Four possible external evaluators will be identified by the department/program by October 15, with Provost's Office approval of two external evaluators by November 1. Typically, the evaluators visit will take place in Feb/March of the review year. The materials that are generated in stage one and stage two, part 1 will comprise the materials that will be shared with the external evaluators to help inform their review of the department/program. There is no expectation or obligation for any department/program to include more than the above required materials.

Depending on the nature of the department/program and its goals, however, a department/program may choose to include additional materials. Additional materials that might be provided to the external evaluators may include:

  • Goals of the review process
  • The most recent evaluation report
  • The Department’s most recent strategic plan
  • Course syllabi
  • Brief (one-page each) Vitae of All Faculty
  • Advising: This could be a brief discussion detailing the departmental procedures for advising majors. It would include materials (Major Handbooks, Advising Documents, Major Declaration Forms) that the department uses for advising.
  • Curriculum: This material may come from the College Catalog, but could be expanded upon to include a more focused discussion on: major(s), participation in General Education, service courses (those courses that are included in other majors and/or programs), electives, etc.
  • Diversity Issues: This would be an assessment of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the department, in terms of students, faculty, and curriculum, as appropriate. It should report how the department is addressing the College’s goal to create and maintain a welcoming and inclusive environment for all members of the community.
  • International Dimensions: This would be a brief assessment of how the department addresses the College’s desire to provide an international perspective to students and the campus. It could include: descriptions of courses revised to have a more international dimension; what the department is doing to encourage students to study abroad; lists of international guests the department has hosted, faculty attendance at conferences on internationalizing the curriculum and/or international travel, and/or percentage of majors who have studied abroad.
  • Postgraduate Preparation/Advising and Outcomes: This could include: a brief discussion of the process used to prepare students for graduate or professional schools; Departmental handbooks, manuals, etc., numbers of students who have been accepted to graduate or professional school since the last review or senior exit interview data.
  • Internship Programs: This could include: a brief description of the appropriateness of internships for your students and how they are incorporated into your curricula, the number of students who have recently participated in internships and their sites.
  • Student/Faculty Research, Scholarship and Creativity: This could include: a brief description of student faculty research, both in and out of the classroom or a list and brief description of recent student/faculty collaboration. Depending on the department, evidence of creative work such as performances, art showings, concerts, etc., would clearly be relevant as well.
  • Teacher Education: A brief description of your program’s participation in teacher education if it is a major component of your program.

The compiled materials for the external evaluators should be sent to the Provost as one electronic PDF document with a table of contents five weeks before the visit. After approval of the draft by the Provost, a final draft of the PDF document should be sent to the evaluators two weeks before the visit.

The Evaluator’s Report

Generally, the evaluator’s report will be 4-8 pages in length. Though there is no standard template for the external review reports, the report may address:

  • Goals for the review outlined in the self-study.
  • How well the department/program is meeting the goals outlined in its strategic plan.
  • How well the department/program is doing in terms of national standards or recognized model programs.
  • The significant strengths and challenges of the department/program as currently configured.
  • How well the department/program is covering the field in its programming for those planning to attend graduate school?
  • What kind of change(s), if any, in the structure or content of the major, minor, or program would make the major/minor/program more attractive to students and more beneficial to the College and members of the faculty?
  • What are recommendations for improvement in the next decade?
  • How well the department/program is using its current staffing and departmental (non-personnel) resources.

The evaluators’ written report will be a source of input into the next stages of the department/program review process. The department/program may generate a formal response to the evaluators’ written report as a source of input for stage 3.

Stage 3: Opportunity Analysis (Office of the Provost and the Department/Program)

After Stages One and Two have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Provost’s Office and members of the Department/Program and the external evaluator report received (if applicable), the Department and Provost’s Office will meet together and conduct an “Opportunity Analysis of the Major, Minor, or Program.” This third, collaborative stage takes into account the information gathered within the first two stages, as well as the external evaluator report, and explores how the major, minor, or program might seize opportunities not previously considered by the institution. The Provost's Office will lead the generation of a jointly created (i.e. Provost's Office and department/program) draft agenda for the opportunity analysis meeting, centered on the materials obtained through stages one and two.

Questions addressed at this stage could include the following:

  • What are the major findings/recommendations of the external evaluator (if appropriate)?
  • What are the continuing benefits to Gustavus of offering this major, minor, or program? How does it help achieve the College’s aims, mission, and current strategic plan goals?
  • What kind of change, if any, in the structure or content of the major, minor, or program would make the major/minor/program more attractive to students and more beneficial to the College and members of the faculty?
  • Assuming that all tenured and tenure-track faculty in the department remain at the College, are there ways to strengthen the overall excellence of the College and to build on faculty areas of expertise other than maintaining the current major, minor, or program?
  • Upon reflection about the College’s majors, minors, and programs as a whole, what other programs might help strengthen the academic standing of the College and be attractive to students?

The Provost’s Office will take minutes from this meeting and submit the minutes to the Department/Program for feedback.

Stage 4: Summary Report (Office of the Provost)

After completing Stage Three of the process, the Provost will provide a one- to two-page written report to the department/program that includes a summary of findings and their recommendations for ways to strengthen the department in relation to the College’s mission, overall curriculum, and ability to attract strong students. The department/program or the Provost's Office may call a meeting to discuss the contents of the report or the department/program may offer written feedback to the report, within two weeks of receipt of the report. The Provost's Office may modify the report based upon this feedback to generate the final version of the report; the report may include a Provost's Office response (as an appendix) that describes why department/program feedback was not incorporated into the report (if applicable). This final version of the report will ideally be shared with the department/program by the end of the spring semester, but the timing will depend upon the timing of stages 1-3 of the process.

In some cases, the final report may recommend that the best course of action for the College requires major changes in the department/program, such as substantially enhancing departmental resources, substantially reducing them, or discontinuing a major, minor, or program. In such cases, the Provost's Office will inform the affected department(s) by the end of the spring semester through the sharing of the final report, which will include a rationale for proposed changes. The department(s) will then have an opportunity to provide a written response to the recommendations by October 1 of the fall semester. The final report, Provost's Office rationale, and departmental/program response will be shared with the Faculty Senate and Curriculum Committee for consultation and recommendation prior to a final recommendation regarding the proposed change by the Provost’s Office. The committee recommendation is due to the Provost's Office by October 20.[1]

Using the departmental, Curriculum Committee and Faculty Senate responses as additional input, the Provost will make a final recommendation regarding the outcome of the process (e.g., changes in resource allocation, curricular direction, discontinuation). If the Provost decides to recommend discontinuation, the Provost will inform the affected department, Curriculum Committee and the Faculty Senate by November 1, providing a rationale and transition plan. If either the Curriculum Committee or Faculty Senate endorses the Provost’s recommendation, the endorsing committee will bring the proposal to the faculty for a vote at the following faculty meeting.

If the faculty approves the discontinuance of a major, minor, or program, then (according to of the Faculty Handbook) the “Provost’s Office will officially notify students in the major/minor/program of the decision of the faculty and work with students and faculty on the transition plan.” Furthermore (according to, “the Registrar’s Office will remove the major/minor/program from future academic catalogs.”

[1] These deadlines will be adjusted appropriately depending upon the timing of the previous steps of the review. A department/program will have at least one month to respond to the Provost's Office recommendations, and the other following dates will be adjusted appropriately.

External Evaluator Logistical Details – 8:3

Selecting Evaluators

In most cases the evaluation team will consist of two external evaluators within the discipline of the department undergoing review. Departments will send a list of at least four evaluators, along with their vitae, to the Dean by April 30. In cases where there are multiple distinctive majors within the department and two may not be the most sensible number, the department chair should consult with their Dean to identify the appropriate size and background(s) of the evaluation team.

The department should contact their nominees to see if they are interested and available. The department will then provide the Dean with a ranking and rationale by October 15. The Dean will select the evaluators by November 1, inform the department/program of the selected candidates, and send the evaluators a formal written invitation. Ideally, the team will consist of one male and one female, with one evaluator being an ethnic minority. Normally, one visitor will be from a comparable undergraduate institution and one will be from an institution that has a graduate program in the discipline. Evaluators should both have tenure in their field, but it is desirable to select evaluators at different points in their career. We find that reviews are most effective when the reviewers have a strong understanding of higher education in this region; for this reason we encourage departments to first consider reviewers from institutions within 500 miles of Gustavus.

When contacting prospective evaluators, it is important to say that the Dean will make the final decision and that they are among several potential candidates. Please ask them to hold proposed dates open, but do not promise that they will be selected. Once the two evaluators have accepted the formal invitation from the Dean, the department chair should contact the remaining prospects to let them know that other evaluators have been selected.

Travel Arrangements and Expenses Related to the Campus Visit

Note: The external evaluation may occur in person or fully remotely; please consult with your Dean about the pros and cons of an on-campus or virtual visit. The section below referrs to an in-person campus visit.

It is the responsibility of the Department Chair/Program Director to collaborate with the selected evaluators to identify possible dates for the campus visit, which typically happens in February or March. Once the chair has identfied potential date options, they should contact Karissa Winter ( or 507-933-7675) to confirm the availability of the Deans and Provost. 

Reviewers are guests of Gustavus when visiting campus. Their expenses are paid by the Office of the Provost. The College appreciates the time faculty devote to hosting candidates and extending hospitality. The Provost’s Office also appreciates efforts made by departments to control costs, while ensuring that every reviewer is treated well and has a comfortable visit.

After the Provost’s Office authorizes reviewers for a campus visit and extends an official invitation, the Chair should contact each reviewer and begin making travel arrangements and arranging for the on-campus visit.

Air Travel

Evaluators should book their own flights. However, upon request the department chair or administrative assistant can also book flights for the evaluators using a college credit card. If tickets are more than $600, please contact Shanon Nowell ( or x7541) for pre-approval. Copies of all receipts need to be submitted to Jennifer Harbo ( or 507-933-6223).

Evaluators should be picked up from the airport or take Land to Air Express ( or 507-625-3977) to Saint Peter rather than renting a car to drive here.

Car Travel

Reviewers who drive to campus will be reimbursed for mileage at the standard IRS rate. Please remember that even a candidate who drives from the Twin Cities will be reimbursed for mileage. While this cost is less than an airline ticket, it’s important to note that there is no such thing as a “free” reviewer.

Reviewers who wish to rent a car for personal purposes (e.g., to visit local family) must do so at their own expense.


Campus visits will include two overnight stays. Contact the Chaplain’s Office ( or 507-933-7001) to make Guest House reservations or, if necessary, make reservations at a local motel using a department member’s Wells Fargo card for payment. The department is also responsible for obtaining the key to the Guest House in a timely manner (e.g., on Friday by noon if the evaluators arrive on a Saturday or Sunday). The Chair will obtain parking permits from the Campus Safety Office, if needed.


During the course of a campus visit, it is useful to use meals as an opportunity to introduce the evaluators to a wider range of people on campus and to show our hospitality. Ideally, evaluators will share all meals with a department member, students, or other faculty with related interests.

In order to have a comfortable, informal conversation with the candidate, only modestly sized groups should join evaluators for meals at the College’s expense. Although we want to be hospitable, this is a time to model good stewardship to our colleagues from other institutions. Please adhere to the following meal guidelines (the number of listed guests below is the maximum; you may opt to invite fewer):

  • Breakfast: evaluators + 2 guests (maximum $10 per person) *normally on-campus
  • Lunch: evaluators + 4 students or 3 guests (maximum $15 per person) *normally on-campus
  • Dinner: evaluators + 2 guests (maximum $35 per person) *normally off-campus
  • Receptions: Limited to one during the on-campus visit ($75 per reception)
  • Alcoholic beverages with meals are permitted and will be reimbursed, but are limited to one per individual and are included within the $35 maximum per person

A department member’s Wells Fargo card should be used for payment. An itemized receipt (not just the credit card receipt) needs to be obtained and the names of those in attendance at the meal should be written on the receipt before it is turned in to the Provost’s Office.

In accordance with the College Travel Policy, tips should not exceed 15% of the cost of service, unless automatically charged.

On-campus meal tickets (for the Marketplace and Campus Buffet) are obtained from Jennifer Harbo ( or 507-933-6223) in the Provost’s Office.

Evaluator Reimbursement

Evaluators will be asked to sign a form that provides the information we need in order to reimburse them for expenses; this will be shared by Jennifer Harbo via SignNow (or similar electronic signature program). Evaluators will be directed to mail receipts for reimbursement for parking, mileage, tolls, etc. to the Provost’s Office upon completion of the trip. Reimbursement will normally be made within two weeks of receiving receipts.

Other Expenses

Should there be costs other than transportation, lodging (if off-campus), and meals, it is important to receive approval of these costs in advance with the Provost’s Office.

Schedule/Coordinate Visit

Approximately two weeks prior to the on-campus visit, the external evaluators will receive the documents generated from Stage one and Stage two, part one of this process. The Department Chair arranges a detailed schedule for the visit (see the sample schedule below). Normally, the reviewers visit for a period of one and a half days. If the visit starts on a Sunday afternoon, for example, the schedule should include:

  • Dinner (Evaluators and 2 faculty)
  • Monday (morning): 30 minute meeting of Evaluators with the Dean
  • Rest of schedule could include meetings with:
    o Department faculty
    o Faculty from related departments
    o Student majors
  • Some free time on Monday evening for them to compare notes. Be sure to inquire of them before they arrive if there are specific things they want to see or do as part of their review.
  • Tuesday (late morning /early afternoon): 1 hour exit interview (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, and Evaluators); this should be the final meeting of the visit.

The department is responsible for ensuring that the evaluators are accompanied to, and picked up from, each appointment.
The Chair of the department will consult with Karissa Winter, Administrative Assistant ( or 507-933-7675), to determine appointment times for the evaluators to meet with the Provost and Dean.


The Provost's Office is responsible for all expenses incurred for this review. The department is responsible for keeping track of all expenses and for submitting a completed request for payment form, along with all receipts.

Following the evaluators’ visit, they will prepare a written report for the Provost and the department. The Provost will acknowledge receipt of the written report with a letter of gratitude, and enclose an honorarium check in the amount of $750 per evaluator.

External Review Check List and Timeline – 8:4

Please note: The example timeline below includes a visit by external evaluators. External evaluators may be included in the process, depending upon need and the date of the last external evaluation. The decision to involve external evaluators will be made in consultation with Chair/Director and the Dean.




Spring 2021

Provost’s Office and Department/Program

The Chair/Director will meet with the Provost’s Office to discuss the process, data sources, and use of external evaluators. Evaluators will be identified by April 30 and approved by September 1.

Summer/Early Fall 2021

Provost’s Office

Stage 1: Data Gathering
The Provosts Office will collect materials associated with stage one of the process and share with the department by September 15.

Fall 2021


Stage 2, Part 1: Generate Narrative
The Department/Program will generate materials associated with stage two, as well as any additional materials relevant for the external evaluators.

Fall 2021


The Chair/Director works with evaluators to identify possible review dates, and then contacts Karissa Winter ( or x7675) in the Provosts Office to confirm the dates of the visit and to schedule the evaluators appointments with the Provost and Dean.

Fall 2021/January 2022


The Department will send the Provosts Office a copy of the materials for the external evaluators five weeks before the visit (if appropriate).

Fall 2021/January 2022


Upon approval from the Provosts Office, the Department will send the evaluator materials to the evaluators (at least two weeks before the visit; if appropriate).

December 2021/January 2022


The Chair/Director makes travel and lodging arrangements for the evaluators.

December 2021/January 2022


The Chair/Director arranges the itinerary for the external evaluators visit.

February/March 2022

External Evaluators

Stage 2, Part 2: External Evaluator On-Campus Visit

March/Early April 2022

External Evaluators

The external evaluator report is submitted to the Provost’s Office.

April 2022

Provost’s Office and Department/Program

An agenda for the Stage 3 meeting is generated (Provost's Office/Department).

April 2022

Provost’s Office and Department/Program

Stage 3: Opportunity Analysis
The Department/Program and Provost's Office will meet to carry out stage three of the process; minutes from the meeting will be taken and provided to the Department/Program

May 2022

Provost’s Office

Stage 4: Review Report
The Provost's Office will develop a summary and recommendations from the review and share it with the department

Sample Schedule for External Evaluators – 8:5

Sunday, February 10

2:30 p.m. Arrive at Minneapolis airport; Tom Keenan, Associate Professor of Linguistics, will meet you
4:00 p.m. Arrive at the campus Guest House.
4:30-5:30 p.m. Tour Linguistic Department facilities in Storkson Hall followed by a brief campus tour with Elizabeth Lewis, Assistant Professor of Linguistics
5:30-6:30 p.m. Open time for evaluators
6:30-8:00 p.m. Dinner with Linguistics Department colleagues Gilbert Broden, Assistant Professor, and Ann Serrano, Associate Professor (El Agave)

Monday, February 11

8:00-9:00 a.m. Breakfast with Professor Susan Smith, Linguistics Department Chair (She will meet you at the Guest House and walk to the Gustavus Market Place)
9:00-9:30 a.m. Meet with Dean Loren Sorenson (Carlson Admin Building, Room 221)
10:00-10:20 a.m. Optional attendance at Daily Sabbath in either Christ Chapel or the Bonnier Multifaith Center
10:30-11:30 a.m. Meeting with faculty from related departments and interdisciplinary programs (Storkson Hall, Room 198)
Emmett Davis, Chair, Philosophy Department
Kasia Mazur, Chair, Computer Science Department
Helena Brink, Chair, Psychology Department
Emily Lin, Director, Asian Studies Program
Charles Hinton, Director, African and African American Studies Program
**Note: Unless otherwise indicated, meetings with faculty are scheduled for Storkson Hall, Room 198
11:30-Noon Jill Marshal, Associate Professor and College Assessment Director
Noon-12:30 p.m. Ann Serrano, Associate Professor (escort to Jackson Student Union)
12:30-1:30 p.m. Lunch/Open time for evaluators (Gustavus Market Place)
2:00-2:30 p.m. Marie Fordyce, Assistant Professor (escort from Jackson Student Union)
2:30-3:00 p.m. Elizabeth Lewis, Assistant Professor
3:00-3:30 p.m. Gilbert Broden, Assistant Professor
3:30-4:00 p.m. Conversation with student majors (Storkson Hall, Room 134)
4:00-5:00 p.m. Open time for evaluators (Guest House or Library)
5:30-7:00 p.m. Dinner with Linguistics Department colleagues Marie Fordyce, Assistant Professor, and David Kim, Associate Professor (Third Street Tavern)
7:00 p.m. Open time for evaluators (Guest house or Library)

Tuesday, February 12

8:00-9:00 a.m. Breakfast with Professor Susan Smith, Linguistics Department Chair; she will meet you at the Guest House (Gustavus Market Place)
9:00-10:00 a.m. Review/discussion time for evaluators (Guest House or the Library)
10:00-10:20 a.m. Chapel is optional
10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Review/discussion time for evaluators (Guest House or the Library)
12:00-1:00 p.m. Lunch with students who are linguistics majors (Anna Brandt ’19, Braydon Schmidt ’20, Rayna Schultz ’21, and Landon Fischer ’22) (Gustavus Market Place)
1:00-2:00 p.m. Exit interview with Provost Lucy Thomen, Dean Loren Sorenson, and Chair Susan Smith. (Provost’s Office Conference Room)
2:00 p.m. Leave for the airport; Tom Keenan will meet you at the Provost’s Office for departure to the Minneapolis airport

Copyright 2023-24, Gustavus Adolphus College. All Rights Reserved.
Last modified: 2 September 2021, by Shanon Nowell