Critics of contemporary higher education frequently overlook an important dimension of assessment of student learning: namely, the social and economic consequences used to justify the assessment measures in the first place. This essay argues that meaningful student assessment must take into account the unintended, transferable utility of liberal higher education. The authors, from a large master’s-comprehensive state university, use a recent survey of alumni of their English degree program from as far back as the 1960s to assess the importance that the degree has had in the lives of former students. Believing that disciplinary differences may help us to understand the navigational courses that emerge as seemingly nonlinear and unpredictable paths from the college degree to the life after college, the authors use students’ responses to identify how, where, and what students have used from their English courses in their most recent professions and, in turn, the limitations of current value-added assessments such as the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA).

The author reflects on what she has learned about university teaching from her experience being a novice student of karate. She asserts the value for even seasoned teachers to maintain a beginner's mind that is free of the habits of the expert, ready to accept, to doubt, and to open to all the possibilities. From this new position, the author's awareness of what she does in the classroom has shifted, as her respect for students has grown and her understanding of their feelings has deepened.

The author reflects on what she has learned about university teaching from her experience being a novice student of karate. She asserts the value for even seasoned teachers to maintain a beginner’s mind that is “free of the habits of the expert, ready to accept, to doubt, and to open to all the possibilities.” From this new position, the author’s awareness of what she does in the classroom has shifted, as her respect for students has grown and her understanding of their feelings has deepened.

The idea for this symposium began when Sheryl Fontaine and Susan Hunter told Rick Gebhardt about two studies they had made of manuscript reviewing practices in composition studies--one surveying experiences and perceptions of authors and one dealing with journal referees. The subject of peer reviewing seemed an important one for a field working, as ours is, to definie its scholarly identity. Rick sensed that his efforts to bring blind refereeing to composition's oldest journal might prove useful in exploring the subject and, for addtional views, he contacted several of CCC's consulting readers. Carol Berkenkotter, who had been studying peer reviewing in the sciences, agreed to attempt a brief theoretical perspective. Phillip Arrington decided to explore the subject personally, from his experiences both as author and referee. And Doug Hesse chose to use personal experience, chaos theory, and MLA panels to discuss referees' reports as scholarship.