the University Concourse
Volume I, Issue 2
February 27, 1996
Table of Contents

Send this article to a friend


This piece is part of a larger section called 'Questions, comments and continuing conversations'.
To see all of that section, click on these lines.

Core curriculum (2)

I just read with great delight Dr. Crosby's diagnosis of our current general education (in the February 13 issue of the Concourse) and want to reply forthwith.

It is inconceivable to me that a university can be a community of scholars without some common body of literature to discuss. An overly intellectually disparate group of people has too little in common to be called an intellectual community. Absent some common core of education, how can an intellectual environment be created outside the classroom, where one subject enlightens another, so that, to paraphrase John Paul II, our students might make sense to each other?

Most of our more recent alumni certainly do not point to some core of knowledge, or Catholic intellectual culture, that has left an indelible print upon their minds or has sharpened their critical thinking on morals and ethics, or on any other issue for that matter. (Notable exceptions are Humanities and Catholic Culture grads.) Noteworthy, too, is that I have heard from alumni who graduated before the curriculum change about how their liberal arts education formed their minds, gave them a competitive edge in their professions, prepared them to grapple with the myriad of challenges they faced in the modern world, and paved the way for a life-long education. Many of them are deeply grateful for the liberal arts education they received at Franciscan University.

I attended an experimental liberal arts school in the University of Oklahoma system, where a rigorous core of interdisciplinary studies was required of every student, who thus received an education in certain fundamentals of science, math, literature, history, philosophy, physical education, the fine arts, and so forth. While impoverished by its secular nature, every year I am more appreciative of that education.

Catholic education ought to be more than learning a profession. It ought to develop a life of the mind that asks questions such as, "Why is there something and not nothing? Who is man? What is he for? And, what is his end?" It ought to help him see what is true and beautiful in life, teach his soul to soar when it encounters such beauty, and impel him to give to humanity more of what is beautiful, true, and eternal. A Catholic education should give every student a lifelong appreciation for history, philosophy, music, art, literature, theology, science, business indeed that whole host of human endeavors. A grounding in "the fundamentals" is so valuable because the fundamentals are eternal. Unlike this or that technique which comes and goes, fundamental truth increases in value because it forms a unified foundation for a full and happy life in Him who is Truth, Jesus Christ.

Jim Fox, Executive Director of University Relations

N.B. The views the author here expresses are his own, and are not necessarily shared by the University.


Related Articles:
• Shouldn't we have a real core curriculum at Franciscan University?, John F. Crosby (I,1)
• Core curriculum (1), R.J. Convery (I,2)
  • Core curriculum (2), Jim Fox (I,2)
• What is a 'real' Catholic education?, Kathleen van Schaijik (I,2)
• Core curriculum (3), Katherine Kemmis (I,3)
• Core curriculum and anti-intellectualism, Adam Tate (I,4)
• Core curriculum and critical thinking, Joseph A. Loizzo (I,5)
• Core curriculum (4), Regis Martin (I,6)
• A defense of a diversified core, Mark Fischer (I,7)
• Making 'the connection': A Steubenville education, Regina Schmiedicke (I,7)
• In reply to Mark Fischer's defense of the present core curriculum, John F. Crosby (II,1)
• More on the curriculum debate, Mark Fischer (II,2)
• Last words on the core, John F. Crosby (II,3)
• What liberal educators may not omit, Regis Martin (IV,4)
• Dr. Martin does it again, Joanna K. M. Bratten (IV,5)
• FUS needs to get more practical about education, Peter Cole (IV,5)
• Why non-liberal majors need a liberal core, Susan C. Fischer (IV,5)
• The real purpose of liberal education, Ben Brown (IV,6)
• The will and the intellect are inseparable, Martha L. Blandford (IV,7)
• Preparing students to compete in the global economy, Peter Cole (IV,7)
• Education not limited to the mind, Susan C. Fischer (IV,7)
• According to the Tradition, education aims beyond the intellect, Matthew Fish (IV,7)
• Newman, education and context, Kathleen van Schaijik (IV,7)
• More on the aim of education: Ben Brown replies to his critics, Ben Brown (V,1)
• Preparing FUS graduates for the modern world, Jason Negri (V,2)
• Liberal arts and professional programs: a reply to Jason Negri, Ben Brown (V,3)
• Let's improve our stats, Sofia Genato (V,3)
• The ideal of perfecting the mind is timeless, Michael Houser (V,3)
• Cultivating the intellect, Anne Schmiesing (V,3)
• Computers and liberal learning, Ben Brown (V,5)
• The eternally practical liberal arts, Timothy J. Williams (V,5)
• Liberal arts with professional training: the best of both worlds, Thomas E. Kelly (V,6)
• Education is not primarily about preparing to evangelize in the workplace, Ben Brown (V,7)
• The God gap in the workplaces of the world, Peter Cole (V,7)
• Arrogant idealism, Jason Negri (V,8)


By the same author:
  • Core curriculum (2), (I,2)
• The goodness of Democracy & the aristocratic response, (I,7)
• Thomas not just a doctor, but a saint, (II,5)
• Distance Education: is it good enough?, (III,4)


[back to top]

© The University Concourse, February 27, 1996