| 
|
This piece is part of a larger section called 'Short takes'.
To see all of that section, click on these lines.
Let's improve our stats
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
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)
[back to top]
© The University Concourse, November 10, 1999
|
