| 
|
This piece is part of a larger section called 'Editor's Postscript'. To see all of that section, click on these lines.
What the education debate is and isn't about
To clear up some apparent confusion: Here is what proponents of a stronger core curriculum are not saying about FUS' education.
They are not saying that we should do away with professional programs and offer nothing but humanities courses. They are not saying that professional training is useless. They are not saying such training is unimportant, and that every student should choose his major as if he expected to enjoy a lifetime of leisure. What they are saying is that training for a career is not the essence of higher education; its essence is the strengthening, expanding, deepening and perfecting of the mind. (They add, by the way, that perfecting the mind is excellent preparation for any graduate program or career, as well as for evangelization.) They say further that to achieve the proper end of education, a strong foundation in liberal arts is the time-tested, tradition-hallowed, insubstitutable means. Next, they point to the fact that despite some truly wonderful course offerings, the FUS core is comparatively weak and in need of fundamental reform so that it includes more liberal arts more thoughtfully arranged.
And for this they get labeled extremists, elitists and medievalists, who are trying to remake FUS after the image of Thomas Aquinas College. How does this happen? Where does it come from?
The Core Curriculum Task Force has just unveiled its proposal for a new core, which apparently represents only a minor improvement over our current core. For instance, it still includes only one philosophy course. Professor Lee, who is on the Task Force, told me that he hasn't been able to find a single other Catholic university that requires so little philosophy, nor one that dedicates as few total credit hours to the core. Shouldn't that tell us something? He used the analogy of a father who asks himself whether he is spending too much time away from home. One way--not the only way, but a helpful way--of finding out would be for him take note of what other Catholic fathers do. If he discovers that every other Catholic father he knows is spending significantly more time with his family, he would have a pretty good indication--not a proof, but an indication--that some lifestyle adjustment on his part was in order.
If we continue this debate next year--and I hope we will, since we have a long way to go before we reach something like consensus--let's make sure we dispute with one another's real views and concrete proposals, and not with caricatures and straw men.
By the same author:
NFP, by itself, does not compromise the marriage vocation, (I,1)
What is a 'real' Catholic education?, (I,2)
Orthodox not paradox, (I,3)
NFP and connaturality, (I,4)
How does a university evangelize?, (I,4)
Thomism and intellectual freedom, (I,5)
Keeping our worship in step with 'what the Spirit is saying' to FUS, (I,7)
Can charismatics and traditionalists peacefully coexist?, (II,1)
The horror of polygamy and the persistence of chauvinistic theories in Catholic academia, (II,1)
The challenge of the Concourse: discussion without (much) contention, (II,2)
When old ideas are breaking up, (II,3)
Why the polygamy problem is not as passe as it appears: Kathleen van Schaijik responds to her critics, (II,4)
Why 'charismatic spirituality' belongs at the heart of our communal life, (II,9)
What is the University Concourse?, (III,1)
How not to help households, (III,1)
Silence betokens ... What?, (III,3)
The freedom of stricture, (III,4)
What were households meant to be?, (III,5)
Different degrees of authority, (III,5)
Last words (for now), (III,6)
A suggestion regarding Extraordinary Ministers, (III,6)
Catholic teaching on capital punishment, (III,6)
A final thought on the household issue, (III,6)
What is our mission, really?, (III,6)
What if Shakspere wasn't Shakespeare?, (III,6)
Clinton's sorry legacy, (III,6)
Evolution, (III,6)
Intimidated? Please don't be., (III,6)
A gift for the graduates of '98, (III,6)
A point of policy, (III,6)
A point of principle, (III,6)
A word of thanks, (III,6)
Love Never Leaves, (IV,1)
Faith and Reason, (IV,2)
A different perspective on the modesty question, (IV,5)
Strangers to the world, (IV,6)
Happy & sad, (IV,7)
Oxford gaining on Shakspere, (IV,7)
Of private and collegiate morality, (IV,7)
Newman, education and context, (IV,7)
Witnesses to Faith in the face of death, (IV,7)
Viva the class of '99!, (IV,7)
A prize winning physicist out of his depth, (IV,7)
A positive psychology, (IV,7)
How to become a leader, (IV,7)
Campus politics, (IV,7)
Thanksgiving, (IV,7)
New face, same spirit, (V,1)
The 'Stratford man' and the Shakespearean canon: no match at all, (V,3)
Bringing the masses from starvation to full strength, (V,4)
Branching out through Christus Magister, (V,6)
Kathleen van Schaijik replies to John Doman on Shakespeare, (V,6)
A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship, (V,7)
Fr. Michael's achievement, (V,8)
Charity may be severe, (V,8)
On the other side of the same coin, (V,8)
Shakespeare debate update, (V,8)
Beware of economic Puritanism, (V,8)
What the education debate is and isn't about, (V,8)
The Weimar Republicans, (V,8)
Drawing out an analogy, (V,8)
Dear Class of 2000, (V,8)
How to support the Concourse by buying books, (V,8)
Thanksgiving, (V,8)
The evil of exorcising judgement, (VI,1)
Jump Start, (VII,1)
It's not the Vatican, it's the laity, (VII,1)
Abusing NFP, (VII,1)
[back to top]
© The University Concourse, May 4, 2000
|