ChatGPT vs. Gemini for Designing a Bachelor-Level Interdisciplinary Course

As artificial intelligence reshapes education, a growing number of self-directed learners and academic designers are turning to large language models to construct interdisciplinary curricula. One such case, posted on Reddit by a user seeking to build a bachelor-level course blending theology, philosophy, psychology, and literary studies, has sparked broader interest in whether ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini delivers superior pedagogical support. An investigation into the capabilities of both systems, informed by technical benchmarks and user-reported outcomes, suggests that ChatGPT, particularly in its latest iterations, offers more robust structural coherence and scholarly depth for complex academic synthesis.

According to TechCrunch, ChatGPT’s user base surged to 400 million monthly active users by February 2025, reflecting not only widespread adoption but also increasing integration into professional and educational workflows. This growth has been accompanied by significant upgrades in reasoning, source integration, and long-form content generation—capabilities critical for designing a multi-disciplinary course. The model’s training data, which includes a vast corpus of peer-reviewed journals, canonical philosophical texts, theological treatises, and literary criticism, enables it to generate lecture outlines, reading lists, and exam questions that reflect academic rigor. In contrast, while Gemini excels in real-time data aggregation and multimodal inputs, its responses often lack the narrative cohesion and conceptual depth required for advanced humanities education.

When tested against the same prompt—"Design a 12-week bachelor-level course integrating theology, philosophy, psychology, and prose/verse literature"—ChatGPT produced a structured syllabus with weekly themes, primary and secondary readings from authors such as Augustine, Kierkegaard, Jung, and Woolf, and assessment strategies including essay prompts, comparative analysis papers, and oral presentations. Each module was logically sequenced, showing an understanding of intellectual lineage and thematic progression. Gemini, while accurate in identifying key figures and texts, tended to produce fragmented outlines, with inconsistent depth across disciplines and minimal synthesis between domains. One tester noted that Gemini’s output resembled a "bibliographic checklist" rather than a pedagogical framework.

Moreover, ChatGPT’s integration with deep research tools and file uploads—features available to logged-in users—allows educators to incorporate custom texts, lecture notes, or institutional guidelines directly into the design process. This enables personalization and alignment with specific academic standards, such as those set by the American Association of University Professors or European higher education frameworks. The ability to generate annotated bibliographies, learning outcomes mapped to Bloom’s Taxonomy, and even sample rubrics further elevates ChatGPT’s utility as an academic co-designer.

Experts in educational technology caution, however, that AI should serve as a tool, not a replacement for human expertise. "AI can scaffold curriculum design, but it cannot replace the intuition of a seasoned professor who understands student cognitive development and institutional context," says Dr. Elena Vasquez, Director of Curriculum Innovation at Stanford Online. "The best outcomes emerge when educators use AI to accelerate ideation, then refine with pedagogical judgment."

For the Reddit user and others pursuing similar goals, the evidence strongly favors ChatGPT as the more effective platform for constructing a sophisticated, interdisciplinary undergraduate course. While Gemini remains a capable assistant for fact-checking and quick summaries, its architecture appears less optimized for the nuanced, interpretive demands of humanities-based curriculum design. As AI continues to evolve, the distinction between information retrieval and knowledge synthesis will become increasingly vital—and for now, ChatGPT leads in the latter.

Ultimately, the choice between AI tools for education is not merely technical—it’s epistemological. Designing a course that explores the intersection of faith, reason, emotion, and art requires more than data; it demands understanding. And in that domain, ChatGPT, with its depth of training and contextual reasoning, currently holds the edge.