|
|
The article in the most recent issue of the Concourse written by Jason Negri really struck a chord in me. I guess I'd been waiting for someone to say something about the quality of the education we get here at Franciscan University. When I first applied to this school, I looked at its ratings in the Princeton Review, Newsweek-Kaplan and Time's Best Colleges, and what I found was depressing. For an institution that is supposedly so good, academically we don't even rank in the 2nd tier among national Universities and Liberal Arts colleges. It really made me wonder whether I was making a wrong choice in coming to this school. Why aren't we as high up the scale as other Catholic universities with comparable tuition fees? Is our education so concentrated on spiritual formation that we compromise on preparation for the REAL WORLD? I understand that most people come here primarily for the religious formation FUS has to offer, but the question is, is that enough? What is going to happen to those graduates who go out into the real, hard and competitive world out there? Can they survive? Will they? Are we getting the education we need? Or are we settling for mediocrity in a world than doesn't stand for it? Will we ever see the day when FUS ranks among the top 100 schools in America? That would not only please us, but God as well, don't you think?
Sofia Genato, Junior, communications major The ideal of perfecting the mind is timeless It is with good reason, it seems, that the last few Concourse issues have dwelt at such length on the purpose of a liberal education. It is a question of critical importance for any FUS student who wants to see what he is doing here. So at the risk of wearying readers by prolonging this discussion, I wish to make my contribution. Jason Negri's recent article on the importance of pre-professional programs and job training is a valuable contribution, coming as it does from someone with personal experience in alumni relations. His words about "entering 'the world' ready to sanctify the workplace" provide an important insight into the real significance of job preparation. However, though his point is well made, and the University must needs prepare students for careers, certain of his remarks on the "elitist" ideal of liberal education, "an. . . ideal whose time is past," could be taken to convey a common modern prejudice, though one he may not actually share. There is nothing "medieval" about the ideal of a liberal education. If such learning was emphasized more in the Middle Ages than it is today, this was at least in part because the Middle Ages realized more clearly the inherent value of truth and being, apart from technological skill. (This did not keep St. Bonaventure from showing how all arts, even the mechanical, can be brought back to God.) If our age values practical knowledge more than liberal, it is in part because of Francis Bacon's notion that "knowledge is power," an idea which, though influential in our technical progress, has greatly harmed the search for truth in the last few centuries. I do not think Mr. Negri really holds this extremely pragmatic view. I merely think that some of his words reveal a certain "chronological snobbery," and contempt for the past which is all too common in modern universities. If liberal education is truly a good which perfects our human nature, then the time of day doesn't much matter. Again, to speak of liberal education as "ivory tower," "elitist," "myopic," or "not looking beyond the rhetoric," seems to suggest that the perfection of the intellect which liberal education seeks is something merely for the snobbish and sophisticated, a matter of vanity. Though we well know that intellectual pride is always a danger, this should not stop us from seeking to develop the faculties that make us distinctively human. Mr. Negri is on target when he reminds us that, like it or not, we must prepare to enter the work force. And many of his remarks show that he truly does appreciate the value of knowledge for its own sake. I simply feel that certain of his statements seem to show disdain for the liberal arts, as if they were not useful in the long run--a view only too common among our contemporaries.
Michael Houser, Freshman, philosophy major In reference to "Being wise parents means being open to learning from different perspectives" by Michael and Alicia Hernon (Vol.IV, issue 2), I just wanted to thank them for finally putting some perspective on this whole issue. As practicing Catholics and first-time parents, we too want to raise our child in a loving Christian home, but also one which places a high premium on honor and civilized behavior in a world where too little attention is paid to those values. At the same time, we certainly do not want to raise "Stepford Baby" as many detractors of Babywise accuse. The middle-of-the-road, use-it-with-a-grain-of-salt approach makes the most sense we've seen yet. Thanks!
Butch Kinerney, Website reader I have a few brief additions to the discourse about the purpose of education. First, in the last issue of the Concourse, Jason Negri seemed to equate "liberal arts" with the humanities. That is a common view, but is it a right one? Ben Brown, in the April 12 issue suggested that the humanities ought to "include parts of mathematics and natural science." My understanding is that the humanities are those disciplines (i.e. philosophy, theology, history and language) which concern human affairs and conventions. Although humanities may exclude mathematics and studies of natural processes, the liberal arts are broader and ought to include not only the humanities, but mathematics, the natural sciences and perhaps some other disciplines as well. Consider the medieval model of liberal arts--the trivium (grammar, logic and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (music, geometry, arithmetic and astronomy). The multiplicity of disciplines suggests that truth is best understood when examining it from a variety of perspectives, and that a person formed in the liberal arts would be a well-rounded person with knowledge of a broad range of subjects. The specific branches of learning held up as the medieval ideals also suggest that a liberal education is intended not only for personal edification, but also for practical purposes. Though logic is certainly beneficial for the personal attainment of truth, the three components of the trivium seem oriented toward the molding of a person not only so that he will be conversant with truth itself, but also capable of engaging the society around him and disseminating truth. The components of the trivium, especially grammar and rhetoric, involve, to some degree, interpersonal communication skills. To address the legitimate concerns aired by Jason Negri and others, if part of liberal education is the teaching of communication skills, perhaps as modes of communication develop--as they have with the rise of computer technology--liberal education ought to be adapted accordingly. Note, however, that writing is not listed in the hierarchy of the trivium and quadrivium, but is taken for granted as something a learned person would know, just as computer communication skills should be today. Both are essential for a modern educated person, but neither writing nor computer literacy is considered to have a place in the hierarchy of knowledge. I think all the participants of this discussion have agreed that computer skills (as well as some other skills) are necessary in today's world, but the underlying question has been what should be the place and extent of required training in computer skills in a liberal arts institution. I have addressed to some degree the place, but the amount is left for further deliberation. I believe that a proper liberal education alone--not merely an education in humanities--can make students more marketable, and a liberal arts education will only enhance professional training. Finally, with Ben Brown, I uphold the value of a liberal arts education "for its perfecting and fulfilling of the human person" (as he put it). Only a liberal education, aimed at perfecting human persons can be good in itself. Even if it falls short of its goal--as it inevitably will--it is still of great value for the effort. I question, though, the value of "education for its own sake" in the case of a poor or inadequate liberal arts education. Brown identifies education with a cultivated intellect, but what is a cultivated intellect? If the intellect were a garden, would we call it cultivated if it were full of weeds? That is, if it loved what was base while erroneously perceiving the object of its nurturing as something good? Perhaps we could say one's intellect is developed or "grown" by an education--whether that education is good or bad--but it can only be cultivated by an education not only seeking truth, but also adhering to truth.
Anne (Lodzinski, '96) Schmiesing Literary works not severed from their human source I just plain disagree with Joanna Bratten's idea that the effort to discover the true identity of Shakespeare is "an unnecessary invasion into the mysterious anonymity of the poet." I do not think that it is wise to deliberately sever an author's works from his biography. If one of the goals of literary criticism is to study human nature, aren't works that are "judged on their merits alone" less valuable than those that are attached to real live human beings? It seems to me that if we are content to study the anonymous works alone we will learn as much about an oak tree as we can gather from a pile of its dead branches.
Justine (Franzonello, '93) Schmiesing
© The University Concourse, November 10, 1999 |
