Below is a brief summary of the results of the survey on the Value Options Game. Click here for the full report.

Question 5: Please rate the effectiveness of the Value Options Game (CIRCLE ONE):

Waste of time	Mildly effective	Effective	Very effective	Outstanding
1	2	3	4	5

Number of responses: 121
Avg Response: 2.79 (between "Mildly Effective" and "Effective," closer to the latter)

Question 6: What was your favorite part of the Value Options Game?

The most common answer was the exchanging of cards—getting to meet people in the process, seeing the cards and what others believe, having to reflect on their own beliefs. One person enjoyed "paying attention to the words used and sorting out my specific values on particular subjects." A number of people liked getting to know their group and facilitator.

Question 7: How could the Values Option Game or the Value Option process be improved?

• Improve Value Cards
• Similarity/Diversity
• Disorganized/Unclear
• Overall Rules/Structure

Question 8: Would you recommend Value Options to your campus when you return? If so, why?

Yes: 19 comments
Maybe/No Answer: 38
No: 33

Most did not explain their reasoning, but of those who did, common complaints were the values were too old/limiting and that grouping together with people with similar values was not interesting or stimulating. Of the people that would recommend it to their schools, most appreciated that it was a good way to mix people up, that it was thought-provoking, and that it gets people to know each other on a deeper level.

Question 9: Any other general comments about the Values Option Game:

Positive and negative comments available in the Full Eval Survey Report.

Conclusion: Overall the Value Options game seems to have suffered from a lack of focus or explicit purpose/direction, dragged on too long, and was something of a lower-energy let-down after the high-energy keynote. It succeeded at some of its intended purposes, namely to turn the energy and focus over to students (though some students felt this would have been better accomplished had keynote speaker, Augie Turak, not MCed the event), to form groups, to get students to think about and articulate their values, and confront them with the radically different values of their fellows. The fact that the "diversity groups" section of the exercise was dropped due to time constraints did take away from the opportunity to confront opposite values and work with them. In addition, the aspect of the Value Options Game that models the realities of everyday life and can reveal to the participant aspects of their character they might not otherwise have seen was not given much emphasis or focus in the activity and was thereby lost on most of the participants.