Educators have often expressed the ideal of integrative teaching which addresses itself to the student in a wholistic fashion. Despite this philosophic point of view, teaching practice has most often shown narrowly defined curricula, strong departmental loyalties, and highly delimited research orientations. A school of education typically breaks its curriculum into the history and philosophy of education, curriculum, child development, children's literature, education evaluation, and teaching methods; a business college has departments and a faculty that teaches the accounting, finance, management, marketing, and economics parts of the students. In both of these cases it is implicitly or explicitly assumed that the learner's mental processes can or should be compartmentalized in such a fashion. The fallacy of these compartmentalizing and departmentalizing practices has been recognized and partially corrected in our business schools under the influence of Gordon and Howell' and the AACSB,2 both of which call for an integrative, senior-level business policy course which ties together the disparate pieces of knowledge parceled out over a student's college career. Some schools have gone even further; they have begun to tie entire academic years together before the senior year.3 The vehicle for this has often been a complex, machine-scored business game where it has been theorized that earlier integration would provide both shortand long-term benefits. These benefits would supposedly generate improved academic performance in the integrated courses and all following business courses, and a higher esprit and enthusiasm for the subsequent university and business experience. This paper presents an evaluation of an experimental junior-level fourcourse curriculum integration effort which attempted to reap these assorted benefits.